meanwhile, back at the ranch with larry, curly, and mo at USDA ET AL ON BSE ALABAMA STYLE

Epidemiology Update March 23, 2006 As of today, 13 locations and 32 movements of cattle have been examined with 27 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of locations and herds will continue. In addition, state and federal officials have confirmed that a black bull calf was born in 2005 to the index animal (the red cow). The calf was taken by the owner to a local stockyard in July 2005 where the calf died. The calf was appropriately disposed of in a local landfill and did not enter the human or animal food chain. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_al_epi-update.shtml > The calf was appropriately disposed of in a local > landfill and did not enter the human or animal food chain. well, back at the ranch with larry, curly and mo heading up the USDA et al, what would you expect, nothing less than shoot, shovel and shut the hell up. no mad cow in USA, feed ban working, no civil war in Iraq either. but what has past history shown us, evidently it has shown the USDA et al nothing ; Disposal of meat and bone meal (MBM) derived from specified risk material (SRM) and over thirty month scheme carcasses by landfill The Committee was asked to consider a quantitative risk assessment of the disposal of meat and bone meal derived from specified risk material and over thirty month scheme carcasses by landfill, prepared in response to a request from the Committee at its June 1999 meeting. The Committee was asked whether, in the light of the results of the risk assessment, it held to its earlier published (June 1999) view that landfill was an acceptable outlet for MBM of any origin, although it retained a preference for incineration. The Committee reiterated that it had a strong preference for incineration as the favoured route for the disposal of MBM and were uneasy about the use of landfill for the disposal of this material. If there were cases where incineration was not practical the Committee felt it would be preferable for any material going to landfill to be pressure-cooked first or possibly stored above ground prior to incineration. http://www.seac.gov.uk/summaries/summ_0700.htm Disposal of BSE suspect carcases It is the Department's policy to dispose of BSE suspects by incineration wherever feasible. No BSE suspect carcases have been landfilled since 1991. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/publichealth/notification.html#disp OPINION ON THE USE OF BURIAL FOR DEALING WITH ANIMAL CARCASSES AND OTHER ANIMAL MATERIALS THAT MIGHT CONTAIN BSE/TSE ADOPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 16-17 JANUARY 2003 The details of the SSC’s evaluation are provided in the attached report. The SSC concludes as follows: (1) The term “burial” includes a diversity of disposal conditions. Although burial is widely used for disposal of waste the degradation process essential for BSE/TSE infectivity reduction is very difficult to control. The extent to which such an infectivity reduction can occur as a consequence of burial is poorly characterised. It would appear to be a slow process in various circumstances. (2) A number of concerns have been identified including potential for groundwater contamination, dispersal/transmission by birds/animals/insects, accidental uncovering by man. (3) In the absence of any new data the SSC confirms its previous opinion that animal material which could possibly be contaminated with BSE/TSEs, burial poses a risk except under highly controlled conditions (e.g., controlled landfill). SNIP... 4. CONCLUSION In the absence of new evidence the opinion of the SSC “Opinion on Fallen Stock” (SSC 25th June 1999) must be endorsed strongly that land burial of all animals and material derived from them for which there is a possibility that they could incorporate BSE/TSEs poses a significant risk. Only in exceptional circumstances where there could be a considerable delay in implementing a safe means of disposal should burial of such materials be considered. Guidelines should be made available to aid on burial site selection. 4 PAGES; http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out309_en.pdf During the 2001 outbreak of FMD in the UK, the Department of Health prepared a rapid qualitative assessment of the potential risks to human health associated with various methods of carcass disposal (UK Department of Health, 2001c). The most relevant hazards to human health resulting from burial were identified as bacteria pathogenic to humans, water-borne protozoa, and BSE. The main potential route identified was contaminated water supplies, and the report generally concluded that an engineered licensed landfill would always be preferable to unlined burial. In general terms, the findings of the qualitative assessment relative to biological agents are summarized in Table 13. TABLE 13. Potential health hazards and associated pathways of exposure resulting from landfill or burial of animal carcasses (adapted from UK Department of Health, 2001c). PLEASE SEE TABLE AT; http://www.k-state.edu/projects/fss/research/books/carcassdispfiles/PDF%20Fi les/CH%201%20-%20Burial.pdf PART 2 Rendering and fixed-facility incineration were preferred, but the necessary resources were not immediately available and UK officials soon learned that the capacity would only cover a portion of the disposal needs. Disposal in commercial landfills was seen as the next best environmental solution, but legal, commercial, and local community problems limited landfill use. With these limitations in mind, pyre burning was the actual initial method used but was subsequently discontinued following increasing public, scientific, and political concerns. Mass burial and on-farm burial were last on the preferred method list due to the complicating matter of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the risk posed to groundwater (Hickman & Hughes, 2002). http://www.k-state.edu/projects/fss/research/books/carcassdispfiles/PDF%20Fi les/Introduction%20to%20Part%202%20-%20Cross-Cutting%20&%20Policy%20Issues.p df Carcase disposal: A Major Problem of the 2001 FMD Outbreak Gordon Hickman and Neil Hughes, Disposal Cell, FMD Joint Co-ordination Centre, Page Street snip... http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/svj/fmd/pages27-40.pdf 3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach was to accord it a _very low profile indeed_. Dr. A Thiermann showed the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all costs_... snip... http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf PAUL BROWN SCRAPIE SOIL TEST http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/sc/seac07/tab03.pdf Some unofficial information from a source on the inside looking out - Confidential!!!! As early as 1992-3 there had been long studies conducted on small pastures containing scrapie infected sheep at the sheep research station associated with the Neuropathogenesis Unit in Edinburgh, Scotland. Whether these are documented...I don't know. But personal recounts both heard and recorded in a daily journal indicate that leaving the pastures free and replacing the topsoil completely at least 2 feet of thickness each year for SEVEN years....and then when very clean (proven scrapie free) sheep were placed on these small pastures.... the new sheep also broke out with scrapie and passed it to offspring. I am not sure that TSE contaminated ground could ever be free of the agent!! A very frightening revelation!!! ---------- You can take that with however many grains of salt you wish, and we can debate these issues all day long, but the bottom line, this is not rocket-science, all one has to do is some experiments and case studies. But for the life of me, I don't know what they are waiting on? Kind regards, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA More here: http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s018.pdf INCINERATION TEMPS Requirements include: a. after burning to the range of 800 to 1000*C to eliminate smell; well heck, this is just typical public relations fear factor control. do you actually think they would spend the extra costs for fuel, for such extreme heat, just to eliminate smell, when they spread manure all over your veg's. i think not. what they really meant were any _TSE agents_. b. Gas scrubbing to eliminate smoke -- though steam may be omitted; c. Stacks to be fitted with grit arreaters; snip... 1.2 Visual Imact It is considered that the requirement for any carcase incinerator disign would be to ensure that the operations relating to the reception, storage and decepitation of diseased carcasses must not be publicly visible and that any part of a carcase could not be removed or interfered with by animals or birds. full text; http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/04/03006001.pdf http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out311_en.pdf TSS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:39 PM Subject: BSE UPDATE ALABAMA March 23, 2006 > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ##################### > > Epidemiology Update March 23, 2006 > As of today, 13 locations and 32 movements of cattle have been examined with > 27 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of > locations and herds will continue. In addition, state and federal officials > have confirmed that a black bull calf was born in 2005 to the index animal > (the red cow). The calf was taken by the owner to a local stockyard in July > 2005 where the calf died. The calf was appropriately disposed of in a local > landfill and did not enter the human or animal food chain. > > > > http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_al_epi-update.shtml > > > TSS > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:33 PM > Subject: BSE UPDATE ALABAMA March 17, 2006 > > > ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy > ##################### > > CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD > TSS > BSE UPDATE ALABAMA March 17, 2006 > Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:29 > 70.110.86.250 > > > > BSE UPDATE ALABAMA March 17, 2006 > > MONTGOMERY - Alabama Agriculture & Industries Commissioner Ron Sparks, State > Veterinarian Dr. Tony Frazier, and Dr. Ken Angel with the USDA held a press > conference today to answer questions about yesterday's exhumation of the > remains of the cow that tested positive for BSE. > > > Federal and state agriculture workers excavated the remains of the animal, > which had been buried on the farm and did not enter the animal or human food > chain, in accordance with USDA protocols. The carcass was that of a red > crossbred beef type cow. An examination of the cow's teeth confirmed that > the animal was at least 10 years of age. Samples were taken of the animal > and the remaining carcass was transported to one of the department's > diagnostic labs for proper disposal. State and Federal staff are continuing > the traceback to determine the herd of origin. > > One calf was identified by the owner as belonging to the red cow. The calf > is approximately 6 weeks old and appeared to be a healthy animal. The calf > was transported to a USDA lab where DNA from the calf will be compared to > that of the red cow to confirm relation. If confirmed, this would be the > first offspring of a BSE diagnosed cow in the United States. Officials today > learned that in early 2005 the BSE-positive cow gave birth to another black > bull calf. This animal is in the process of being traced. > > The cow was first examined by a local veterinarian in late February 2006. > After the animal failed to respond to medical attention, it was humanely > euthanized. The cattle producer buried the cow at the farm because Alabama > Department of Agriculture & Industries regulations require burial of > livestock within 24 hours. The producer did not suspect that the cow had > BSE. The local veterinarian sent samples of the cow to the Alabama > Department of Agriculture & Industries lab > system, which was then forwarded to the USDA lab in Athens, GA as part of > the routine voluntary surveillance program for BSE testing. After the rapid > test for BSE gave an inconclusive result, the samples were sent to Ames, > Iowa for a Western Blot test, which gave a positive result. A third test, > the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, was performed this week and also > returned positive results for BSE. > > The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries and the USDA have been > encouraging participation in Premises ID Registration as an important step > in controlling animal disease. Since starting the program in 2005, over > 2,000 premises have been registered in Alabama. For more information on > Premises ID Registration call 334-240-7253 > > http://www.agi.state.al.us/press_releases/bse-update > > http://www.agi.state.al.us/press_releases/bse-update?pn=2 > > > > ITEM 6 – BARB CASE CLUSTERS > > 39. Professor John Wilesmith (Defra) updated the committee on the > > BSE cases born after the 1996 reinforced mammalian meat and > > bone meal ban in the UK (BARB cases). Around 116 BARB cases > > had been identified in Great Britain up to 22 November 2005, > > mostly through active surveillance. BARB cases had decreased in > > successive birth cohorts, from 44 in the 1996/1997 cohort to none > > to date in the 2000/2001 cohort. However, 3 BARB cases had > > been identified in the 2001/2002 cohort. Backcalculation of the > > prevalence of BARB cases indicated a drop from 130 infected > > animals per million (95% confidence interval 90-190) in the > > 1996/1997 cohort to 30 infected animals per million (95% > > confidence interval 10-60) in the 1999/2000 cohort. A shift in the > > geographical distribution of BSE cases, from the concentration of > > pre-1996 BSE cases in Eastern England to a more uniform > > 14 > > © SEAC 2005 > > distribution of BARB cases, had occurred. However, it appeared > > that certain post-1996 cohorts had a higher exposure to BSE in > > certain areas for limited periods. Several clusters of BARB cases > > within herds had been identified (5 pairs, 2 triplets and 1 > > quadruplet). > > 40. A triplet of BARB cases in South West Wales had been > > investigated in detail. The triplet comprised 2 cases born in > > September and October 2001 and a third in May 2002. The > > animals born in 2001 were reared outdoors from the spring of 2002 > > but the animal born in 2002 had been reared indoors. Further > > investigation of feeding practices revealed that a new feed bin for > > the adult dairy herd had been installed in September 1998. In July > > 2002 the feed bin was emptied, but not cleaned, and relocated. All > > 3 BARB cases received feed from the relocated bin. This finding > > suggested the hypothesis that the feed bin installed in September > > 1998 was filled initially with contaminated feed, that remnants of > > this feed fell to the bottom of the bin during its relocation, and thus > > young animals in the 2001/2002 birth cohort were exposed to > > feedstuffs produced in 1998. No adult cattle had been infected > > because of the reduced susceptibility to BSE with increasing age. > > 41. Further investigation of multiple case herds had found no > > association of BARB clusters with the closure of feed mills. > > 42. Professor Wilesmith concluded that there is evidence of a decline > > in risk of infection for successive birth cohorts of cattle. The BARB > > epidemic is unlikely to be sustained by animals born after 31 July > > 2000. Feed bins could represent a continued source of occasional > > infection and advice to farmers is being formulated to reduce this > > risk. There is no evidence for an indigenous source of infection for > > the BARB cases. > > 43. Members considered it encouraging that no other factor, apart from > > feed contamination, had been identified as a possible cause of > > BARB cases to date. Members commented that this study > > suggests that only a small amount of contaminated feed may be > > required for infection and that BSE infectivity can survive in the > > environment for several years. Professor Wilesmith agreed and > > noted that infection caused by small doses of infectious material > > was consistent with other studies, and it would appear there is little > > dilution of infectivity, if present, in the rendering system. > > Additionally it appeared that the infectious agent had survived for 4 > > years in the feed bin. > > 44. The Chair thanked Professor Wilesmith for his presentation. > > > > snip... > > > > http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/final90.pdf > > > TSS > > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html > #################### > > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html #################### > #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################

Comments

and don't even let them give

and don't even let them give you any BSe about over and under 30 months on anything;

Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA

snip...

the myth that cattle under 30 months of age are free from BSE/TSE is
just that, a myth,
and it's a false myth !

the youngest age of BSE case to date is 20 months old; As at: 31 May
2003 Year of onset Age youngest case (mnths) Age 2nd youngest case
(mnths) Age 2nd oldest case (yrs.mnths) Age oldest case (yrs.mnths) 1986
30 33 5.03 5.07 1987 30 31 9.09 10.00 1988 24 27 10.02 11.01(2) 1989 21
24(4) 12.00(2) 15.04 1990 24(2) 26 13.03 14.00 1991 24 26(3) 14.02 17.05
1992 20 26 15.02 16.02 1993 29 30(3) 14.10 18.10 1994 30(2) 31(2) 14.05
16.07 1995 24 32 14.09 15.05 1996 29 30 15.07 17.02 1997 37(7) 38(3)
14.09 15.01 1998 34 36 14.07 15.05 1999 39(2) 41 13.07 13.10 2000 40 42
17.08 19.09 2001 48(2) 56 14.10 14.11 2002 51 52 15.08 15.09(2) 2003 50
62 11.11 14.11

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/bse/yng-old.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/index.html

The implications of the Swiss result for Britain, which has had the most
BSE, are complex. Only cattle aged 30 months or younger are eaten in
Britain, on the assumption, based on feeding trials, that cattle of that
age, even if they were infected as calves, have not yet accumulated
enough prions to be infectious. But the youngest cow to develop BSE on
record in Britain was 20 months old, showing some are fast incubators.
Models predict that 200-300 cattle under 30 months per year are infected
with BSE and enter the food chain currently in Britain. Of these 3-5
could be fast incubators and carrying detectable quantities of prion.

http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail/html-home/28-html/0359.html

snip...

Commentary by European Microbiologist Roland Heynkes

August 26, 2003 Posted to BSE-L@UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE

> SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Well, thank you, Tony, for your question. As
> you know, we've spent a considerable amount of time on this issue
> of Canada and the single case of BSE. The announcement we made on
> the 8th had several aspects. One was we were going to use a permit
> process to open the border with respect to boxed beef from animals
> under 30 months. As you know, animals under 30 months are generally
> thought to be of virtually no risk of having BSE. Now, we will also
> begin a regulatory process to look at the lowest risk animals,
> those under 30 months. That regulation is in process at this point,
> but it will take some time to actually do the regulation. That will
> include a risk assessment and so forth.
>

in my opinion this is a statement with intent to deceive and it is not
correct. There have been several cases of clinical BSE in British cattle
under 30 months and it is therefore hardly possible to think that cattle
under 30 months have virtually no risk of having BSE. In 1988 the
youngest British BSE case was 24, the second youngest 27 months old. In
1989 the youngest British BSE case was 21 and there were 4 cases only 24
months old. In 1990 there were two cases only 24 and one 26 months old.
In 1991 the youngest British BSE case was 24 and there were 3 cases only
26 months old. In 1992 the youngest British BSE case was 20!, the second
youngest 26 months old. In 1993 there was was a 29 months old case, in
1995 the UK had a 24 months old case and in 1996 one British BSE case
was 29 months old.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-statistics/bse/yng-old.html

But mainly this wrong statement is misleading, because not the
clinically sick cows are the problem for consumers. The real problem are
those animals that became infected as calves and are still incubating
the infectivity during the incubation time of 5-6 years. For consumers
it is therefore totally irrelevant that cattle are at low risk to reach
the clinical stage before being 30 months old. Important for consumers
is the fact that most British BSE cases became infected as calves
(http://www.heynkes.de/peaks.htm) and that infected calves are already
amplifying the infectivity. The advantage of young calves for consumers
is that the infectivity in infected animals is low and still
concentrated around the gastro- intestinal tract. But this is not
necessarily true for bulls, which are usually slaughtered when they are
19-22 months old. They are too young to give positive results in the
actual BSE tests, but they might be infective for consumers.

For US consumers it is of no importance whether a BSE-infected Canadian
cow will show the first symptoms before or after it becomes 30 months
old. Interesting for the consumers is only

1) if cattle are infected or not,

2) where in the animal is how much of the infectivity and

3) what happens to the infectivity during slaughtering?

If the US government is really interested to reduce consumers risk, it
has to

1) stop cannibalism among farm animals (no farm animal protein and fat
in feeding stuff for farm animals, no possibility of cross contamination
of concentrate feed in mills and no lambing on pastures where scrapie
might be a problem)

2) test slaughter cattle above 24 months for BSE,

3) avoid contamination of the beef with prions from CNS by changing
slaughter methods (electrical stunning instead of captive bolt, no
immobilisation with a pithing rod, no spreading of infectivity by sawing
through the spinal cord),

4) destroy the high risk materials (brain, eyes, spinal cord, dorsal
root ganglia and other peripheral ganglia, nervous and lymphatic tissue
associated with intestine)

5) commit the whole chain from abattoir to counter in shop and
restaurant to label products from cattle and sheep, because it is only a
myth that scrapie is less infective than BSE.

In addition the US government should test all cattle and sheep which
died or had to be killed because of illness. This measure should be hold
out for at least one year in order to see the real BSE- and
scrapie-incidence in the USA....

Microbiologist Roland Heynkes

http://www.heynkes.de/default.htm

snip...full text;

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed

TSS

BSE UPDATE ALABAMA March 24, 2006

Subject: BSE UPDATE ALABAMA March 24, 2006
Date: March 25, 2006 at 10:15 am PST

March 24, 2006 - BSE Update
MONTGOMERY – Commissioner Ron Sparks and State Veterinarian Dr. Tony Frazier with the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (ADAI) and the USDA have provided an update on their ongoing joint investigation of the cow that died from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Alabama.

March 24, 2006 - BSE Update

Since the investigation began, the ADAI and the USDA have followed multiple leads in the traceback process. At this time, 13 locations and 32 movements of cattle have been examined with 27 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of locations and herds will continue. In addition, state and federal officials have confirmed that a black bull calf was born in 2005 to the index animal (the red cow). The calf was taken by the owner to a local stockyard in July 2005 where the calf died. The calf was disposed of in a local landfill and did not enter the human or animal food chain.

Without a premises or animal ID program in place, the traceback process to find the herd of origin of the index cow is time-consuming and difficult. It includes conducting interviews, reviewing of records and documents, and testing of cattle DNA. State and federal officials have discovered several herds of interest and they are planning to use DNA testing to determine DNA linkage between the index cow and the herds. Through the DNA testing of these herds, investigators will attempt to find a genetic path that could lead to the herd of origin. Commissioner Sparks stressed that the DNA testing being conducted on the herds is for genetic markers and is not a test for the disease BSE.

As part of the thorough investigative process, a large number of cattle may be tested in this phase and the number of herds included will continue to grow as the traceback progresses. Leads will be followed by state and federal officials until they are exhausted. Even when an index animal is traced to it’s birth herd, often cohorts of that animal are no longer in that herd. In addition, even if an animal’s cohort has been exposed to the same infective material in feed, the other animals will not necessarily contract BSE.

BSE is not a contagious disease that spreads animal to animal, or animal to human. BSE spreads in cattle through the consumption of feed containing specified risk material (brain and spinal cord) derived from BSE infected cattle. The United States banned the use of such protein supplements in cattle feed since 1997. Sparks says that beef consumption in this country is safe and there are measures in place to see that it continues to be safe. For example, downer animals are not allowed to enter commerce for human consumption and there is a ban on feeding ruminant derived protein to cattle.

http://www.agi.state.al.us/press_releases/march-24-2006---bse-update2?pn=2

TSS

MAD COW FRIENDLY FIRE A REALITY via blood and medical procedure

Predicting susceptibility and incubation time of human-to-human transmission of vCJD
MT Bishop a, P Hart b, L Aitchison b, HN Baybutt b, C Plinston b, V Thomson b, NL Tuzi b, MW Head a, JW Ironside a, RG Will a and JC Manson b

Summary
Background
Identification of possible transmission of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) via blood transfusion has caused concern over spread of the disease within the human population. We aimed to model iatrogenic spread to enable a comparison of transmission efficiencies of vCJD and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and an assessment of the effect of the codon-129 polymorphism on human susceptibility.

Methods
Mice were produced to express human or bovine prion protein (PrP) by direct replacement of the mouse PrP gene. Since the human PrP gene has variation at codon 129, with MM, VV, and MV genotypes, three inbred lines with an identical genetic background were produced to express human PrP with the codon-129 MM, MV, and VV genotypes. Mice were inoculated with BSE or vCJD and assessed for clinical and pathological signs of disease.

Findings
BSE was transmitted to the bovine line but did not transmit to the human lines. By contrast, vCJD was transmitted to all three human lines with different pathological characteristics for each genotype and a gradation of transmission efficiency from MM to MV to VV.

Interpretation
Transmission of BSE to human beings is probably restricted by the presence of a significant species barrier. However, there seems to be a substantially reduced barrier for human-to-human transmission of vCJD. Moreover, all individuals, irrespective of codon-129 genotype, could be susceptible to secondary transmission of vCJD through routes such as blood transfusion. A lengthy preclinical disease is predicted by these models, which may represent a risk for further disease transmission and thus a significant public-health issue.

Affiliations

a. National CJD Surveillance Unit, Bryan Matthews Building, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
b. Institute for Animal Health, Neuropathogenesis Unit, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, UK

Correspondence to: Prof J C Manson, Institute for Animal Health, Neuropathogenesis Unit, Ogston Building, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JF, UK

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474442206704136/abstract?isEOP=true

27 March 2006
Of mice and men... and vCJD
Destination Journal: The Lancet Neurology

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) has become a serious public-health concern in Europe, especially in the UK, since it was first described in 1996. This new prion disease in human beings, acquired by ingestion of food contaminated by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent, has raised new questions not only about food safety, but also about the possibility that human prion diseases could be transmitted from human to human. .....

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474442206704148/fulltext?isEOP=true

Scientists warn of high rate of vCJD infection

Polly Curtis, health correspondent
Monday March 27, 2006
The Guardian

A "significant level" of the population could be unknowingly infected with variant CJD, according to scientists whose study reveals the disease to be more easily transmitted than previously thought.
The debate about the number of people infected by vCJD - the human form of BSE - has ranged from estimates of a few hundred to hundreds of thousands.

Some people are understood to be more genetically susceptible to the disease but the study published today by Lancet Neurology shows that mice with all variations of the gene involved were susceptible to different degrees to vCJD passed on through infected blood transfusions.

The paper concludes: "All individuals ... could be susceptible to secondary transmission of vCJD through routes such as blood transfusion. A lengthy preclinical disease is predicted by these models, which may represent a risk for further disease transmission and thus a significant public health issue."
The study confirms that the likelihood of transmission from animal to human via infected meat is low, but suggests human to human transmission through infected blood products and surgical equipment is more likely than previously thought.

The National CJD Surveillance Unit and the Institute for Animal Health in Edinburgh said there had been 161 reported cases of vCJD in the UK.

The degenerative brain disease causes progressive dementia, and is in most cases fatal. The incubation period is believed to be up to 15 years.

It is believed that the number of infections through infected meat has been reduced dramatically since safety measures were introduced in the 1990s.

But scientists fear a second wave of cases could be on the way, from people accidentally infected through contaminated surgical instruments or blood transfusion.

The government is considering ways of screening people during postmortems to see whether they are carriers in an effort to see how much hidden vCJD there is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bse/article/0,,1740397,00.html

Scots team finds dormant CJD could emerge to claim many more lives
LOUISE GRAY
New study claims vCJD may lie dormant without symptoms
Disease may also be contracted by blood transfusion
Fears that underlying vCJD may lead to second wave of deaths
Key quote
"You cannot rule out the possibility there may be some effect of BSE on people who have so far shown no effect" - PROF HUGH PENNINGTON

Story in full FAR more people could be at risk of contracting the human form of mad cow disease than previously thought after new evidence emerged that the condition could lie dormant for years before developing.

A long incubation period for the disease, together with an ability to pass it on through blood transfusions and surgical instruments, has the potential to create a "significant public health issue", scientists from Edinburgh said.

Through studies on mice, they concluded that variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD) could lie in the body for many years without showing any symptoms.

Due to long incubation times for the disease, a "significant level" of underlying vCJD may already be present in the population, they said.

The number of deaths from vCJD rose steadily from 1995 to a peak of 28 in 2000, since when fatalities have fallen, leading many to conclude the worst had passed.

But the latest research suggests a second peak is still to come and the disease could claim many more lives.

The disease, believed to be passed from cattle to humans through eating meat infected with BSE during the 1980s and 90s, has killed 154 people in Britain to date, according to the vCJD Surveillance Unit at the Western General Hospital. Six people are still fighting the disease.

Until now, those who have died from the disease have been of a particular gene type - the MM genotype.

However, through studies on mice, scientists at the Institute for Animal Health in Edinburgh concluded that variant vCJD could also be found in other genotypes but lie in the body for many years without showing any symptoms.

This means a "significant level" of underlying vCJD may already be present in the population without knowledge.

The experts also found that vCJD could be passed from human to human through secondary transmission - such as blood transfusions and contaminated surgical equipment - in all genotypes.

The study, published on-line today by The Lancet Neurology, said the fact people may not know they are carrying the disease in its dormant form means it could be spread through blood transfusion to which all genotypes are susceptible.

"All individuals... could be susceptible to secondary transmission of vCJD through routes such as blood transfusion," the scientists warn in the study. A lengthy preclinical disease is predicted by these models, which may represent a risk for further disease transmission and thus a significant public health issue."

Last November, about 50 people who received blood transfusions were warned they may have been exposed to vCJD.

In July, a similar warning was issued to about 100 blood donors whose blood was given to three people who later developed the disease.

Professor Hugh Pennington, the president of the Society of General Microbiology, said there could be a second wave of fatalities if more genotypes are affected but not yet coming down with symptoms. "You cannot rule out the possibility there may be some effect of BSE on people who have so far shown no effect," he said.

But, people with longer incubation periods are likely to be less susceptible to the disease and Prof Pennington thought a second wave would have begun to show.

More likely is the risk of unknowingly transmitting the infection. This would increase the risk to the population as a whole, but it is impossible to say how many people would die as a result.

"I do not think anybody could put a figure on it," said Prof Pennington.

Graham Steel, co-founder of the vCJD Alliance, whose brother died of the disease, said it was "not welcome news".

"This [is] certainly a 'warning sign' that should be taken with utmost seriousness," he said.

Marc Leighton Turner, a clinical director for the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, said the findings were of concern. "It may well be that people of all types of gene type have been infected but it is predominantly the MM gene type who have died of the disease, which suggests there may be a significant number of people in the general population who have been infected but who do not have the disease and indeed may never have the disease. This is a concern for us in the blood transfusion service and surgeons as they may be a source of secondary transmission."

Delusions, loss of mobility, and a young life cut short by this terrible illness
DONNA McIntyre was a successful young woman when signs of the human form of mad cow disease began to emerge.

Two months before her 21st birthday, the receptionist disappeared from her flat in Aberdeen. When she resurfaced, she was clearly ill. She had been living on the streets and had become delusional.

Donna was a meat-eater and liked her burgers and pies but her family never expected this to cause such a terrible illness. Over the next few months Donna lost her speech and mobility.

She died of vCJD aged 22, 12 months after she was diagnosed with the illness, in August 2001.

Malcolm Savidge, the former Labour MP for Aberdeen North who supported Donna's family through that difficult time, said it was always unclear whether it would be "hundreds or hundreds of thousands" affected by BSE-infected meat.

After the recent fall in deaths he was hopeful it would remain low, but the new research has led to fresh uncertainty.

"We have to be aware of the possibility that there may be still be a further terrible toll taken. But we must hope that is not going to be the case," he said.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=470922006

TSS

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: BIOLOGICS -- CLASS I

_______________________________
PRODUCT
Human Tissue for Transplantation, Recall # B-0432-6:
a) Tricortical Wedge (R) 1.5 x 2.5 cm,
Freeze Dried Irradiated;
b) Tricortical Wedge ( L ) 1.7 x 3.0 cm,
Fresh Frozen Irradiated;
c) Cancellous Crushed 60.0 cc, Freeze Dried,
Irradiated;
d) Cancellous Crushed 30.0 cc Freeze Dried,
Irradiated;
e) Achilles Tendon OA ( R ) Fresh Frozen
Irradiated;
f) Achilles Tendon OA ( L ) Fresh Frozen
Irradiated;
g) Lumbar;
h) Cancellous Crushed 30.0 cc Fresh Frozen,
Irradiated
CODE
a) Tissue 04091-002;
b) Tissue 04113-003;
c) Tissues 04091-008, 04101-008, 04103-002,
04103-003, 04105-003;
d) Tissues 04091-005, 04091-006, 04091-007,
04101-006, 04101-007, 04102-004, 04102-005,
04104-003, 04104-004, 04104-005, 04105-002,
04109-003, 04109-004, 04120-004, 04124-003,
04124-004, 04138-002, 04138-003, 04140-002,
04143-002, 04143-003, 04146-001, 04152-001;
e) Tissues 04101-003, 04123-004;
f) Tissues 04101-004, 04123-003;
g) Tissues 03049-001, 03051-001, 04091-001,
04102-001, 04103-001, 04104-001, 04105-001,
04106-001, 04107-001, 04108-001, 04109-001,
04113-001, 04120-001, 04122-001, 04123-001,
04124-001;
h) Tissue 04108-002
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Central Texas Regional Blood & Tissue Center, Austin, TX, by telephone on October 4, 2005, and by letter dated October 11, 2005.
Manufacturer: Biomedical Tissue Services, Fort Lee, NJ, firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Human tissues, procured from donors without adequate donor eligibility determinations, were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
51 allografts
DISTRIBUTION
TX and CO

PRODUCT
Human Corneal Tissues for Transplantation, Recall # B-0380-6
CODE
Tissues: CI044108 OD and CI044108 OS
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Michigan Eye Bank, Ann Arbor, MI, by letter dated November 22, 2005, and by facsimile dated November 28, 2005. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Human Corneas, collected from an ineligible donor, were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
2 tissues
DISTRIBUTION
MI, CA and Germany

_______________________________

PRODUCT
a) Red Blood Cells Leukocytes Reduced,
Recall # B-0617-6;
b) Red Blood Cells (Apheresis) Leukocytes Reduced
(distributed as split product), Recall # B-0618-6;
c) Platelets Leukocytes Reduced, Recall # B-0619-6;
d) Fresh Frozen Plasma, Recall # B-0620-6;
e) Cryoprecipitated AHF, Recall # B-0621-6;
f) Plasma Cryoprecipitate Reduced, Recall # B-0622-6;
g) Recovered Plasma, Recall # B-0623-6
CODE
a) Unit numbers: 1136792, 1040212, 1011245;
b) Unit numbers: 1048247-1, 1048247-2;
c) Unit numbers: 1040212, 1011245;
d) Unit number: 1136792;
e) Unit numbers: 1040212, 1011245;
f) Unit number: 1040212;
g) Unit number: 1011245
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Hoxworth Blood Center, Cincinnati, OH, by letter dated September 6, 2005. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Blood products, collected from a donor considered to be at increased risk for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
12 units
DISTRIBUTION
OH and FL

_______________________________

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 1, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00941.html

PRODUCT
Recovered Plasma, Recall # B-0643-6
CODE
Unit numbers: R170537, R165863, and R158308
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Puget Sound Blood Center, Seattle, WA, by facsimile on October 7, 2003. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Blood products, which were collected from an unsuitable donor based on risk factors for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
3 units
DISTRIBUTION
Austria

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00940.html

PRODUCT
a) Product is 1.0 cc Regenaform® RT. SINGLE PATIENT
USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0481-06;
b) OPTEFORM Allografts of varying sizes. SINGLE PATIENT
USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0482-06;
c) Product is OPTEFORM Allograft Paste of varying sizes.
SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0483-06;
d) OPTEFORM® RT Moldable Allograft of varying sizes.
SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0484-06;
e) Osteofil + RT Allograft Paste in varying sizes.
SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0485-06;
f) Osteofil Allograft Paste (Bio) of varying sizes.
SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0486-06;
g) Osteofil IC Syringeable of varying sizes. SINGLE
PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # 0487-06;
h) Osteofil ICM Moldable Strip of varying sizes.
SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0488-06;
i) Osteofil RT, ICM Allograft Paste of varying sizes.
SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0489-06;
j) OSTEOFIL® DBM Paste of varying sizes. SINGLE
PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0490-06;
k) OsteoPack 3 FZ 22cc. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.
Recall # Z-0491-06;
l) Regenafil IC. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.
Recall # Z-0492-06;
m) REGENAFORM RT Allograft Paste, 1cc. SINGLE
PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0493-06;
n) Product is REGENAFORM® Allograft Moldable Blocks,
of varying sizes. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.
Recall # Z-0494-06;
o) Product is RTI Allograft Paste of varying sizes.
SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0495-06;
p) Product is REGENAFIL® Allograft Paste, Syringe,
0.5cc. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # 0496-06;
q) Product is 1.0cc flowable paste from donor
approved for distribution in Italy. SINGLE
PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0497-06;
r) Product is OPTEFIL Allograft Paste of varying
sizes. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall
# Z-0498-06;
s) Product is OPTEFIL Allograft Paste, Syringe
of varying sizes. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.
Recall # Z-0499-06;
t) Product is OPTEFORM® Allograft Full Disc,
5 x 90mm, 32cc, Frozen. SINGLE PATIENT USE
ONLY, Recall # Z-0500-06;
u) Product is 2.0 cc Opteform® RT. SINGLE
PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0501-06
CODE
2879130 2879131 2879132 2879133 2879134 2879135 2879136

snip...too long and too many recalls to list here...tss

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Regeneration Technologies, Inc., Alachua, FL, by letter on October 14, 2005. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
The tissue was collected from donors for whom there is no verifiable identity or consent. The medical records and social histories of the donors cannot be ascertained. The devices which incorporate these donor bone tissues undergo processing, including sterilization, which has been validated to inactivate and/or remove all viral diseases for which human tissue donors are tested.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
5,320
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide and Internationally

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 15, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00939.html

_______________________________
PRODUCT
Source Plasma, Recall # B-0584-6
CODE
Units VL53767, ZZ031076, ZZ030881, ZZ03046, VL151413, VL151144, VL50837
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
BioLife Plasma Services LP, Shreveport, LA, by facsimile dated October 6, 2003. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Source Plasma, collected from a donor who was at increased risk for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), was distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
7 units
DISTRIBUTION
NC

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00937.html

_______________________________
PRODUCT
Red Blood Cells, Recall # B-0552-6
CODE
Unit number: 4426304
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Florida's Blood Center, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL, by facsimile on July 8, 2005. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Blood product, collected from a donor who may have been at increased risk for new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD), was distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1 unit
DISTRIBUTION
FL

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 25, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00936.html

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: BIOLOGICS -- CLASS I

_______________________________
PRODUCT
Human Tissue for Transplantation, Recall # B-0322-6
a) Alloquent CC Allograft (8, 9 & 10 mm);
b) Achilles Tendon;
c) Cancellous Bone 4-10 mm (15 & 30 cc);
d) Patella Tendon-Hemi;
e) Iliac Crest Wedge (14-17mm, 11-13mm,
<10mm, and 18+mm);
f) Tibialis Tendon
CODE
a) Code: BS30-4008, BS30-4009, BS30-4010;
b) Code: LATM;
c) Code: LCISM & LCIPM;
d) Code: LTTM;
e) Code: LIWXLM, LIWLM, LIWMM, LIWSM;
f) Code: LTTM
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Lost Mountain Tissue Bank, Kennesaw, GA, by letters dated October 12, and October 21, 2005.
Manufacturer: Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., Fort Lee, NJ. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Human tissues, procured from donors without adequate donor eligibility determinations, were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
283 tissues
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide and Turkey

_______________________________
PRODUCT
PUROS Allograft Bone;
Suspend Tutoplast Processed Fascia Lata,
Recall # B-0375-6
CODE
a) U00000000045293 U00000000045294 U00000000045295

snip...

b) BM03L11421A012031504 BM03L11821A012031504

snip...again, too many recalls of this product to list here...tss

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Tutogen Medical, Inc., Alachua, FL, by telephone, facsimile and letter on October 14, 2005 and by letter dated October 24, 2005.
Responsible Firm: Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., Fort Lee, NJ. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Human Tissues, procured from donors without adequate donor eligibility determinations, were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
a) 5,676 allografts;
b) 48 allografts
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide, and Canada

_______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Red Blood Cells, Leukocytes
Reduced, Recall # B-0492-6;
b) Recovered Plasma, Recall # B-0497-6
CODE
a) and b) Unit number: 4101212
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Northwest Florida Blood Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL, by telephone and facsimile on March 7, 2003. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Blood products, collected from an unsuitable donor due to a history of travel to an area considered at increased risk of exposure to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD), were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
2 units
DISTRIBUTION
FL

_______________________________

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 18, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00935.html

PRODUCT
Source Plasma, Recall # B-0391-6
CODE
Unit number: 7030260750
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
ZLB Bioplasma, Inc., San Antonio, TX, by facsimile and telephone on September 29, 2003. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Blood product, which was collected from a donor who was deferred due to risk factors associated with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) travel, was distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
1 unit
DISTRIBUTION
FL

_______________________________

______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Red Blood Cells, Leukocytes Reduced
Recall # B-0456-6;
b) Recovered Plasma, Recall # B-0457-6
CODE
a) Unit number: 06FR39967;
b) Unit numbers: 06FR37676, 06FR39967
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
American National Red Cross, Southern California Region, Pomona, California, by telephone on June 2, 2002, and by letter dated, June 20, 2002, and by facsimile transmission dated June 19, 2002. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Blood products, collected from a donor who was at increased risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), were distributed.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
3 units
DISTRIBUTION
CA and Switzerland

_______________________________

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 4, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00933.html

THE END...

I LOVE THE DIXIE CHICKS AND SO DOES GOD, THEY WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG...TSS

BSE ALABAMA Epidemiology Updates March 27, 2006

Epidemiology Updates

March 27, 2006
As of today, 14 locations and 40 movements of cattle have been examined with 32 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of locations and herds will continue. A location includes stockyards or farms where the index cow lived previously or where her immediate family members may have lived. The movements include any arrivals or departures from those locations. Additional investigations of locations and herds will continue.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_al_epi-update.shtml

TSS

BSE ALABAMA Epidemiology Update March 28, 2006

Epidemiology Updates

March 28, 2006
As of today, 14 locations and 44 movements of cattle have been examined with
32 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of
locations and herds will continue. A location includes stockyards or farms
where the index cow lived previously or where her immediate family members
may have lived. The movements include any arrivals or departures from those
locations.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_al_epi-update.shtml

TSS

SEAC 2/24/06 MEDICAL IMPLANTS USA BOVINE ORIGIN GBR III

Subject: SEAC DRAFTS MINUTES 91st meeting held on 24th February 2006 ITEM 5 – MEDICAL IMPLANTS CONTAINING BOVINE MATERIAL OF USA ORIGIN BSE GBR III
Date: March 29, 2006 at 9:44 am PST

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Draft minutes of the open session of the 91st meeting held on 24th

February 2006

snip...

Members agreed that this third case indicates that there is

relatively high risk of transmission of vCJD by blood

transfusion. It was not known whether a tonsil biopsy had

been conducted in this case. Such a biopsy was considered

important to help ascertain whether tonsil biopsy could be

used as a diagnostic test for clinical iatrogenic vCJD. It also

was considered important to conduct autopsies on these

remaining individuals on the event of their death to determine,

amongst other things, the prevalence of infection in this group.

Professor John Collinge (MRC – Prion Unit) considered it very

important that these individuals had access to best practice

care and counselling and be informed about clinical trials and

the development of potential therapies. Members agreed that

active approaches to obtaining tissues for testing and clinical

monitoring of these patients was important both to ensure best

practice clinical care and for enhancing understanding of risks.

• Interviews had taken place for two new members for SEAC.

The recommendations of the interview panel would be

submitted to Ministers shortly.

snip...

ITEM 5 – MEDICAL IMPLANTS CONTAINING BOVINE MATERIAL

(SEAC 91/2)

12. The Chair explained that the Medicines and Healthcare products

Regulatory Agency (MHRA) asked the committee to consider

issues around potential BSE risks to humans from medical

implants using bovine material from USA animals. SEAC was also

asked to comment on a scheme developed by a British Standards

Institution (BSI) committee to assess whether BSE risks associated

with medical devices are minimised.

13. MrJeremy Tinkler (MHRA) summarised the regulations on medical

devices containing animal materials in relation to TSE risks. The

regulations are based on the principle that TSE risks must be

eliminated or reduced as much as possible and residual risks must

be acceptable when weighed against the benefits to patients.

About 100 medical devices containing bovine material, which have

tissue contact with the recipient, are available in Europe. They

tend to be used to treat serious conditions and confer significant

clinical benefit, such as heart valves for paediatric cases. At

present there are no alternatives to the animal-derived materials

used in these products.

14. MrTinkler explained that, although regulations are in place, no

guidance exists on the acceptability of TSE risk control measures

applied to animal material in medical devices. Careful sourcing of

animal material tends to be the most practicable way of reducing

the TSE risk. The lack of guidance has led to inconsistent

interpretation of the regulations across Europe. This was recently

highlighted by the certification by a Notified Body in one Member

State of -cardiovascular implants sourced from open cattle herds in

the USA, recently reclassified as a Geographical BSE Risk (GBR)

level III country. Certification was on the grounds of a lack of

alternatives. However, the MHRA took the view that the TSE risk

associated with these devices had not been minimised since it

should be possible to source the material from another country or

from closed herds. Therefore, the MHRA felt that it was

inappropriate to market such products freely in Europe, and their

use should only be permitted on humanitarian grounds until the risk

had been minimised.

15. The MHRA wished SEAC to advise upon 3 issues. First, can the

TSE risk associated with medical implants utilising bovine material

sourced from USA cattle be estimated, given that it might vary over

time? Second, is there, or has there been a significant risk from

the use of such products that might warrant action in addition to

that already taken to limit use of the products? Third, can the

standards that support the regulations be altered to facilitate more

consistent decisions about the acceptability of products? To

address this third issue, a BSI committee has proposed a scheme,

outlined in SEAC paper 91/2, that consists of additional

requirements for acceptability of TSE risks in relation to medical

devices.

16. A member noted that there are a number of variables that influence

the overall risks and benefits from medical devices containing

bovine material. The presence of TSE agents in the implant is

influenced by the type of tissue used. The site of implantation also

affects TSE risk, implantation sites in contact with central nervous

system (CNS) or the blood supply could raise transmission risks.

In addition, the number of animals used per device would influence

transmission risks. The potential benefit to patients is also

influenced by the type of device, with the benefit ranging from life

saving (cardiovascular implants) to enhancement of quality of life

(orthopaedic footware). The range of availability of alternatives

may also vary considerably depending on the device. Taking all

these factors together there is likely to be a wide range in the risk :

benefit ratio between medical devices and a ‘one rule fits all’

approach was unlikely to be meaningful. Mr Tinkler noted that

sourcing, availability and safety measures for skin contact devices,

such as orthopaedic footwear tended to be similar to those for

consumer products, whereas more stringent safety and quality

assurance measures were employed for medical implants

(including collagen).

17. Members noted that the number of animals needed to source

material for implants such as heart valves was likely to be small. It

should be possible to reduce risks by sourcing these materials

from closed herds or herds managed carefully to prevent the

introduction of the BSE agent. Mr Tinkler agreed that it should be

possible to use closed herds. Additionally, it was suggested that it

may be possible to source materials from other species, such as

pigs. Mr Tinkler responded that heart valves from pigs had been

used in medical implants but porcine pericardium was too thin and

so bovine pericardium was used in most cases. Dr Matthews

explained that the cost of using animals from closed herds for

some devices may be prohibitively expensive, noting the material

for many devices is sourced from animals slaughtered for human

consumption. A member noted that if relatively few animals are

required this should not be prohibitive for potentially life-saving

devices.

18. Members asked about the age of the source cattle, noting that use

of material from younger animals would markedly reduce risks. Mr

Tinkler explained that animal age depended on the quality of the

tissue required for the intended use. For example, 6 month old

animals would be used to source pericardium or heart valves,

however collagen would be obtained from older animals. Members

suggested that age of animal be used as a risk reduction criterion.

TSE testing of the source animal could also be used as a risk

reduction measure, although such testing would not definitively

prove an animal to be uninfected. Mr Tinkler noted that BSE

testing had not been included as a requirement in the standard.

19. Members suggested that, because of the wide range of variables

that influence the risk in relation to medical devices, it is more

appropriate to conduct independent risk assessments on each

device. The characteristics of the device, the tissue and source

animal all influence the risk to varying extents.

20. Members considered that GBR status gives a very imprecise

indication of BSE risk. In relative terms, the BSE risk was likely to

be lower in a GBR I country compared with a GBR III country, but

the difference in risk cannot be quantified. In terms of a more

robust risk analysis, it is important to obtain a more reliable

estimate of the prevalence of BSE in a country than simply GBR

status, and have confidence in the quality of the surveillance data.

Since all the necessary BSE surveillance data from the USA are

not publicly available, it is not possible to accurately determine the

prevalence of BSE in the USA. Dr Matthews noted that at the time

the standard was developed, GBR status, while crude, was the

only tool available to assess risk and that it reflected the

uncertainties in the data available. In the future, the GBR

categorisation would to be replaced by a simplified classification in

line with an Office International des Epizooties (OIE)

categorisation. He pointed out that such schemes took into

account of exposure to the BSE agent from the UK or other

countries and that they were developed in the context of

uncertainty about the infectivity of particular tissues.

21. Dr Matthews noted that data are now available on the infectivity of

a wide range of bovine tissues. In September 2005, the World

Health Organisation had updated its assessment of the risk of TSE

infectivity in tissues. These data, although incomplete, should

increase confidence in the safety of particular tissues, particularly if

the age of the source animal is also considered. As a result, less

reliance need now be placed on the status of the country of origin.

Members agreed, but noted that it would be important to assess

the quality of the data on which assessments are based. As it

seems highly likely that blood, at least from humans infected with

vCJD, can be infectious, tissues and organs with a significant

blood supply may also confer higher risk.

22. Members noted that some of the definitions used in the BSI

scheme were poorly defined and non-quantitative. Furthermore,

there was no quantitation of the maximum acceptable risk - it was

not appropriate to consider that just because a risk has been

minimised by available techniques, the absolute risk was

acceptably low. In addition, the scheme appeared to attach similar

importance to each risk reduction method and selectively apply

them to each GBR status, which may be inappropriate.

23. In summary, the committee concluded that a risk assessment

should be conducted on each device because of the large number

of variables that influence associated TSE risks. Key factors which

should be considered when assessing risks are:

• the animal source. Use of material from closed herds or

from herds that are managed carefully to prevent the

introduction of the BSE agent.

• use of material from young animals would markedly lower

risk compared with older animals.

• the geographical risk of BSE. When assessing the

geographical risk of BSE, the GBR status of a country gives

an imprecise indication of BSE risk. It would be better to use

an estimated prevalence of BSE in a country based on data

from a robust surveillance system.

• the potential TSE infectivity of the source tissue(s) based on

a careful assessment of the available data on tissue

infectivity.

• the site of implantation. Sites with contact with the blood

supply or CNS may increase risk.

• whether TSE testing is undertaken on the source animal(s).

• the number of source animals used for each device.

snip...

http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/draft91.pdf

Subject: BSE--U.S. 50 STATE CONFERENCE CALL Jan. 9, 2001
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:49:00 -0800
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de

######### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#########

Greetings List Members,

I was lucky enough to sit in on this BSE conference
call today and even managed to ask a question.
that is when the trouble started.

I submitted a version of my notes to
Sandra Blakeslee of the New York Times,
whom seemed very upset, and rightly
so.

"They tell me it is a closed meeting and
they will release whatever information
they deem fit. Rather infuriating."

and i would have been doing just fine,
until i asked my question. i was surprised
my time to ask a question so quick.

(understand, these are taken from my notes for now.
the spelling of names and such could be off.)

[host Richard Barns]
and now a question from Terry S. Singeltary of
CJD Watch.

[TSS]
yes, thank you,
U.S. cattle, what kind of guarantee can you
give for serum or tissue donor herds?

[no answer, you could hear in the back ground,
mumbling and 'we can't. have him ask the question
again.]

[host Richard]
could you repeat the question?

[TSS]
U.S. cattle, what kind of guarantee can you
give for serum or tissue donor herds?

[not sure whom ask this]
what group are you with?

[TSS]
CJD Watch, my Mom died from hvCJD and we are
tracking CJD world-wide.

[not sure who is speaking]
could you please disconnect Mr. Singeltary

[TSS]
you are not going to answer my question?

[not sure whom speaking]
NO

from this point, i was still connected, got to listen
and tape the whole conference. at one point someone
came on, a woman, and ask again;

[unknown woman]
what group are you with?

[TSS]
CJD Watch and my Mom died from hvCJD
we are trying to tract down CJD and other
human TSE's world wide. i was invited to
sit in on this from someone inside the USDA/APHIS
and that is why i am here. do you intend on banning
me from this conference now?

at this point the conference was turned back up,
and i got to finish listening. They never answered
or even addressed my one question, or even addressed
the issue. BUT, i will try and give you a run-down
for now, of the conference.

IF i were another Country, I would take heed to my
notes, BUT PLEASE do not depend on them. ask for
transcript from;

RBARNS@ORA.FDA.GOV
301-827-6906

he would be glad to give you one ;-)

Rockville Maryland,
Richard Barns Host

SNIP...END...TSS

============================================

Freas, William

Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM

Consultants Staff January 2001 Meeting (short version)

Last, but not least. The illegal/legal harvesting of body parts and tissues will come back to haunt you. Maybe not morally, but due to NO background checks and human TSEs, again it will continue to spread.

Stupidity, Ignorance and Greed is what fuels this disease. You must stop all of this and ACT AT ONCE...

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf

40,000 human heart valves a year from BSE herds
Sun, 3 Sep 2000. Unpublished Inquiry documents obtained by CJD activist
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. of Bacliff, Texas

http://www.mad-cow.org/00/sep00_news.html#hhh

The documents below were provided by Terry S. Singeltary Sr on 8 May 2000. They are optically character read (scanned into computer) and so may contain typos and unreadable parts.

TIP740203/l 0424 CONFIDENTIAL

http://www.mad-cow.org/00/may00_news.html

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (216-119-138-152.ipset18.wt.net)

Subject: COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE/BSE/SURGICAL IMPLANTS/BLOOD CONTACT DEVICES (1989)

Date: August 31, 2000 at 1:46 pm PST

Greetings,

thought i would make a comment on some of these old documentsi have been posting, still more to come. But i am trying to showthe pattern of deceipt and lies that surround this pendingenvironmental worldwide human/animal catastrophe. If i have not proven it yet, to EVERYONE, i will, just give me a little more time, my scanner and myself can only go so fast....

thanks,

Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA

============================================

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Miss M Duncan From: Dr E HoxeyDate: 29 January 1990cc: Mr R BurtonDr N RichardsonMs K TurnerMs J DhellMr N WeatherheadBOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY1.

In your absence on sick leave, I chaired the STD BSE group meetingon 26th January 1990.2. The minutes of the meeting will be circulated shortly but I was askedto bring to your attention the concerns of the group regarding the BMSheart valve.3. This concern arose from a number of points on the agenda:-i) the______________decision to source all raw material for sutures from Australasia from January 1990.ii) the major cleandown and decontamination proposed for thefactory and the possibility of press interest that this may generate.iii) the indication in the Tyrell Report on Research that theinfective agent may be induced to cross the species barrier byintracerebral, intraperitoneal or intravenous injection.4. As you are aware, the____________situation has been a model which wehave observed closely.5. Reviewing the BMS situatien, we considered the incidence of BSE inthe herds used for materials, the processing received by the materialand the age of the cattle used. Given the number of uncertainties andlack of definitive information on BSE, the_______________model wasstill considered as a good one. The group were uncomfortable with theposition of BMS as the only company using UK sourced material.6. The group considered that it may be worthwhile arranging a furthermeeting with___________to confidentially make them aware that theywould now be the only company using UK sourced bovine material forproducts of this type.7. Clearly, __________and__________ are now in an exposed position inthis area and all the implications need te be considered. Could we haveyour news on this proposal please?Dr E V HoxeyPD STD PG1A716 RSQExt 335690/01.29/19.1==============B.S.E. GUIDELINES ON BOVINE IMPLANTS & BLOOD CONTACT DEVICES -MEETING WITH MANUFACTURERSDATE: 8 DECEMBER 1989DH REPRESENTATIVES Nigel RichardsonWill BurtonEammon HoxeyJeremy TinklerHelen CampbellCarol BleakleyBill WaineThe main purpose of the meeeting is to discuss the companies currentmanufacturing procedures, future plans and their compliance with theBSE guidelines. Their views were also sought as to the practicalfeasibility of the guidelines with respect to the manufacturingprocess, and any improvements that could be suggested.The meetings were held separately with each company. Neither hadreceived any queries concerning BSE from countries to which theirproducts are exported.CURRENT POSITION1.__________ have brought in a microbiologist as a technical scientificadviser, initially to inform them of the current understanding ofBSE. He is still available to them and keeps them up to date with newdevelopments.2. At present they produce bovine pericardial heart valves, & (a sistercompany) produces heparin coated products (from a porcine source). Inthe future it is possible that they will introduce a bovine patchproduced from bovine pericardium from the same source. They will keepthe Department informed of any progress in this area.SOURCE MATERIAL3. The source material for the manufacture of heart valves is bovinepericardial sacs. The cows used are 18-24 months old when slaughtered,the majority around 18 months. BMS have no knowledge of the actualage.4. The cows are killed using brain penetration. Dr Bleakley made thepoint that as far as she was aware this was the only method used inthis country. Meat inspectors are paid to obtain the bovinepericardium. They are paid a set rate but bonuses are given forincreased yields. Mr Burton expressed concern as to the conflict ofinterests that may arise as a result of this. Dr Bleakley did notbelieve that this was the case because of the relationship BMS haddeveloped with the inspectors.89/12.12/8.1============COMMENTS ON THE GUIDELINES14. Dr. Bleakley believed that the pericardium would not allow thereplication of the causative agent, and does not present a risk.15. She suggested that the guidelines were impossible to implementfrom the point of view of the manufacturing process for the followingreasons:--It is not possible to use closed herds simply because of the numbersof cattle involved. This is up to 800 each week.-Calves under 6 months old cannot be used as the pericardium is toothin to be incorporated into a valve.-For cows this in the age group used brain penetration is the onlymethod of slaughtering used in this country.PROPOSALS PUT FORWARD BY DR BLEAKLEY16. The goverment should fund research in this area. For example,investigating the presence or absence of the infectious agent inother parts of the body, such as the pericardium. Also to look at howthe slaughtering process affects the spread of the disease.17. Ideally the answer would be to take random tissue samples inorder to detect contaminated material. This is not currently feasiblewith the length of time required to conduct titre testing.COMMENTS ON THE REVIEW ON METHODS OF STERILIZATION FOR BSE18. Everything present reflected the published material, but thevalidity of some of this is questionable. It was pointed out that:--it was stated that different strains display different heatsensitivity, but this does not appear to be chemically related-the claim to be "effective' would depend on the type of material thatwas being used and the time involved.CURRENT POSITION19.____________ manufacture porcine valves and bovine pericardialpatches. The possibility of producing porcine conduits is currentlybeing investigated. This has not yet progressed.20. The material is obtained from 2 abattoires in this country:--Dorchester, where veal calves under 18 weeks are slaughtered forsourcing pericardium for ________________. These are used to producesmall patches of less than 90mm diameter, this may be divided into 4quadrants. This represents 80-90% of sales.-Fairham where cows between 5 and 10 years old are slaughtered toproduce larger patches and strips of 100mm by 45mm.89/12.12/8.2=============32. As a result of the concern voiced of direct inoculation of BSEvia sectioning instruments it was stated that it would be feasible touse new blades with each carcass.COMMENTS ON THE GUIDELINES33. Dr Waine was not convinced of the need for sterile sectioningequipment and separate packaging from the abattoire. He felt thatthis would merely have a cosmetic effect.34. He suggested that the possibility of bovine-human cross-infectionwas very remote.35. He did not believe that it was possible for manufacturers tofollow the guidelines as they stand.PROPOSALS36. Dr Waine felt that the steps taken by the Government had beenrealistic to control the outbreak.REVIEW37. Dr Waine did not believe that any sterilization treatmentproposed would retain the surgical usage of the pericardium.VALVES38. The response has been that this problem is restricted to the U.K.Thier material is obtained from the same Italian source as thepatches. There is no age specification on the cows but the preferenceis for the larger valves which would therefore come from the olderanimals.PORCINE VALVES39. There was a small discussion as to whether these products do fallunder the issued guidelines. The assumption had been made by thecompany that they are not included as pigs are not known to besusceptible to infection by a Scrapie-like agent. This was confirmedby Dr Hoxey.40. The pigs are electrocuted and the heart and pericardium obtainedprior to inspection.41. One abattoire supplies them with most of their porcine requirments.H CampbellPG2CRoom 312 RSQExt. 321212 December 198989/12.12/8.3============TIP740203/3 0241Bovine Spongiform Meeting Held On Friday 26th January 1990Present Dr E Hoxey {chairman)Mr W BurtonDr N RichardsonMrs J DhellMs K TurnerMS H CambellMr N Weatherhead (secretary)copies: Miss Duncan1.ApologiesApologies were received from Miss Duncan2.Minutes of the last meeting.The previous minutes were accepted.3.Matters arising not on the agenda.As agreed at the previous meeting the paper on "Inactivation ofScrapie-like Agents" was sent with a Covering letter drafted byDr Hoxey to all companies that use Bovine or Porcine materiais.4.Report on the STD meeting with ___________________The minutes of the meeting were discussed by the committee it wasnoted that:-a} _____________ now meet DH Guidelines as the devices produced fromthe calf material comply as that they are obtained from animals lessthan 6 months old.The company had written to confirm that they nowsource older animals from overseas.b) _____________ are unable to meet the DH Guidelines.and will not be doing so in the foreseeable future. The panel showedconcern over the stance that BMS are taking. The committee felt that itwas important to arrange a further meeting to inform them that theyare now the only company using UK sourced material. [see minutes of themeeting dated 8/12/89 attached). Dr Hoxey agreed to write separateyto Miss Duncan on this issue.action: Dr Hoxey5. Report on the CSM/MCA BSE working party meeting 10/1/90Mr Burton had produced a note of the above meeting as the minutes hadas yet not been distributed. The committee noted that:-90/01.26/20.1=============TIP740203/3 02421) _______________ has exceeded all expectations tn complyingwith DH Guidelines. They will be sourcing all raw material fromAustralasia from January 1990.2) _______________ are using an international expert _______________to advise them on factory decontamination at the change over of source.3) The use of Dr Taylor and the factory decontamination may qeneratepress interest.4) The offal ban has not yet been expanded to include Scotland.5) The CSM/MCA BSE working group agrees with the approach that STDare taking to Tissue Harvesting and wished to be kept updated.The note of the meeting is attached for reference.6. STD Database updatingMr Burton drafted a minute for signature by Mr Worroll.The object ofthe minute was to enable STD to keep a check on companies that useanimal material in their products.The control manual committee amended the minute and agreed that theaudit report procedure should include (if it does not already) astatement to the effect that the company information section shouldinclude details of raw materials used.The CMC suggested a sentence to the effect "Team leaders visitingBlue Guide companies should additionally take account of Mr Worroll'sminute of Jan 1990." The committee agreed with this sentence and passedit back for inclusion in the Base-line Documents.action N Weatherhead7. Review of the 'Interim Report of the Consultative Committee onResearch into BSE" (Tyrell committee report.)Mrs Dhell presented a summarized Version of the above document to thecommittee. It was noted that only the research studies catorqorisedhigh/medium priority would all somehow receive funding. The committeeexpressed a wish to find out:-1) Areas which have not been prioritised which have relevance toSTDS area of interest.2) Has any party taken up the study "Investigation into the fate ofbovine and ovine tissues and product that could lead to infection byas yet unrecognised routes."90/01.26/20.2==============TIP740203/3 02433. The protocol of work being carried out by the Clinical ResearchLaboratory in Harrow add proposed by the Neuropathogenesis unit inEdinburgh:a) Have they any plans to include pericardium. If not could PD suggestthat they miqht include it.b) What controls are they using.c) Will it be possible to arrange a visit.4) It was suggested that Dr Pickles be contacted as the DHrepresentitive on the Tyrell committee, to enquire if comments onthis document were being sought by the committee, as PD has a numberof points it wishes to raise.8. Incorporation of Guidance into Chemical Methods for the sterilizationof animal tissue Used in medical Devices.The draft paper on methods of validation in chemical sterilization wasshown to the BGRP for comments, these were later received. A copy wasalso forwarded to MCA and despite numerous reminders no reply had asyet been received.The committee recommended that the paper on "Chemical Methods for theSterilization of Animal Tissue Used in Medical Devices" should beamended include Tissue Harvesting. The BGRP will be informed of thisand a copy of tbe document will be presented to the next CMS/MCA BSEworking group which is to be held on 4th July l99O.Mrs Dhell to arrange a meeting to draft this ammendment.Mrs Turneraction:Hr TinklerMrs DhellDr Hoxey9. Possibility of sending STD paper 'Inactivation of Scrapie-likeAgents" to Dr Taylor and Dr Kimberlin for their comments.The committee felt that the paper should be sent to Dr Taylor andDr Klmberlin and that they should be invited to comment. If theysubsequently required payment for this work the committee felt thatthe Department should finance it if necessary.Mrs Dhell will draft a letter to accompany the report for Miss Duncanto sign.action: Mrs Dhell90/01.26/20.3==============TIP740203/3 024410. - presentation on current situationMiss Duncan's report was passed over until the next meeting.1l. Oral discussion on relevant media interest and media reports.The discussion mainly revolved around _____________ and the exposedposition PD would be in if the media became involved. The possiblepress coverage expected in relation to events at ___________ could alsoraise the profile of BSE in "medical" products.Mr Burton to obtain copies of any defensive briefings draftedby MCA in responce to the ______________ situation.N Weatherhead90/01.26/20.4############ http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############ i recieved the 1947 report of the Louping-ill vaccine incident and posted on www here; Louping-ill vaccine (scrapie transmission by vaccine) THE VETERINARY RECORD 516 No 47. Vol. 58 November 23rd, 1946 NATIONAL VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND ANNUAL CONGRESS, 1946 snip... The enquiry made the position clear. Scrapie was developing in the sheep vaccinated in 1935 and it was only in a few instances that the owner was associating the occurrence with louping-ill vaccination. The disease was affecting all breeds and it was confined to the animals vaccinated with batch 2. This was clearly demonstrated on a number of farms on which batch 1 had been used to inoculate the hoggs in 1935 and batch 2 to inoculate the ewes. None of the hoggs, which at this time were three- year-old ewes. At this time it was difficult to forecast whether all of the 18,000 sheep which had received batch 2 vaccine would develop scrapie. It was fortunate, however, that the majority of the sheep vaccinated with batch 2 were ewes and therfore all that were four years old and upwards at the time of vaccination had already been disposed of and there only remained the ewes which had been two to three years old at the time of vaccination, consequently no accurate assessment of the incidence of scrapie could be made. On a few farms, however, where vaccination was confined to hoggs, the incidence ranged from 1 percent, to 35 percent, with an average of about 5 percent. Since batch 2 vaccine had been incriminated as a probable source of scrapie infection, an attempt was made to trace the origin of the 112 sheep whose tissues had been included in the vaccine. It was found that they had been supplied by three owners and that all were of the Blackface or Greyface breed with the exception of eight which were Cheviot lambs born in 1935 from ewes which had been in contact with scrapie infection. Some of these contact ewes developed scrapie in 1936-37 and three surviving fellow lambs to the eight included in the batch 2 vaccine of 1935 developed scrapie, one in September, 1936, one in February, 1937, and one in November, 1937. There was, therefore, strong presumptive evidence that the eight Cheviot lambs included in the vaccine althought apparently healthy were, in fact, in the incubative stage of a scrapie infection and that in their tissues there was an infective agent which had contaminated the batch 2 vaccine, rendering it liable to set up scrapie. If that assumption was correct then the evidence indicated that:- (1) the infective agent of scrapie was present in the brain, spinal cord and or spleen of infected sheep: (2) it could withstand a concentration of formalin of 0-35 percent, which inactivated the virus of louping-ill: (3) it could be transmitted by subcutaneous inoculation; (4) it had an incubative period of two years and longer. Two Frenchmen, Cuille & Chelle (1939) as the result of experiments commenced in 1932, reported the successful infection of sheep by inoculation of emulsions of spinal cord or brain material by the intracerebral, epidural, intraocular and subcutaneous routes The incubation period varied according to the route employed, being one year intracerebrally, 15 months intraocularly and 20 months subcutaneously. They failed to infect rabbits but succeeded in infecting goats. Another important part of their work showed that the infective agent could pass throught a chamberland 1.3 filter, thus demonstrating that the infective agent was a filtrable virus. It was a curious coincidence that while they were doing their transmission experiments their work was being confirmed by the unforeseeable infectivity of a formalinized tissue vaccine. As a result of this experience a large-scale transmision experiment involving the ue of 788 sheep was commenced in 1938 on a farm specially taken for the purpose by the Animal Diseases Research Association with funds provided by the Agricultural Research Council. The experiment was designed to determine the nature of the infective agent and the pathogenesis of the disease. It is only possible here to give a summary of the result which showed that (1) saline suspensions of brain and spinal cord tissue of sheep affected with scrapie were infective to normal sheep when inoculatted intracerebrally or subcutaneously; (2) the incubation period after intracerebral inoculation was seven months and upwards and only 60 percent of the inoculated sheep developed scrapie during a period of four and a half years; (3) the incubation period after subcutaneous inoculation was 15 months and upwards and only about 30 percent of the inoculated sheep developed the disease during the four and a half years: (4) the infective agent was of small size and probably a filtrable virus. The prolonged incubative period of the disease and the remarkable resistance of the causal agent to formalin are features of distinct interest. It still remains to determine if a biological test can be devised to detect infected animals so that they can be killed for food before they develop clinical symptoms and to explore the possibilities of producing an immunity to the disease...

8. The Secretary of State has a number of licences. We understand that the inactivated polio vaccine is no longer being used. There is a stock of smallpox vaccine. We have not been able to determine the source material. (Made in sheep very unlikely to contain bovine ingredients).

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/02/14010001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/02/14011001.pdf

although 176 products do _not_ conform to the CSM/VPC guidelines.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/09/06011001.pdf

Super-ovulate cattle. (Not to forget about the potential for some BSE cases to come from vaccinations containing pituitary-derived SRMs.)

TWA LITTLE minute

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/06/10001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/06/13010001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/06/14006001.pdf

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/09/06005001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/10/06005001.pdf

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/11/01012001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/yb/1988/11/04003001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/04/00007001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/07/00007001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/09/00004001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/10/00003001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/01/04001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/01/26007001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/01/30001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/09/06011001.pdf

NON-LICENSED HUMAN TISSUE DEVICES WERE NOT COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE

snip...

I was quite prepared to believe in unofficial pituitary hormones, also in the 1970's, whether as described by Dr. Little, or in other circumstances, for animal use.

snip...

The fact that there were jars of pituitaries (or extract) around on shelves is attested by the still potent 1943 pituitaries, described in Stockell Hartree et al. (J/RF/17/291) which had come from the lab. at Mill Hill. Having taken the trouble to collect them, they were not lightly thrown out...

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s467bx.pdf

more on the 1968 medicine act, they forgot to follow

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/01/30008001.pdf

Draft cover letter to product licence holders (considered by Human and Vet Medicines including deer)

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/02/22008001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/02/22011001.pdf

(It was noted with concern that hormone extracts could be manufactured by a veterinary surgeon for administration to animals under his care without any Medicines Act Control.)

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/06/08011001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/06/08011001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/06/07010001.pdf

TWA LITTLE STATEMENT 331

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s331.pdf

25 Apr 2002 : Column WA58
Bovine Embryos and Live Cattle: Imports from North America

The Earl of Caithness asked her Majesty's Government:

When the ban on the importation of embryos and live cattle from North America will be lifted; and [HL3912]
What is the scientific evidence for the imposition of a ban on the importation of embryos and live cattle from North America. [HL3913]

Lord Whitty: Her Majesty's Government have not imposed a ban on imports of bovine embryos and live cattle from North America.

The European Parliament and European Council introduced legislation in May last year laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). The legislation was introduced in response to the recommendations of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE—the international animal health organisation) and advice from the Commission's scientific comittees. The legislation (and the transitional measures which came into effect in October last year) includes requirement that imports into the EU of bovine embryos and live cattle must be accompanied by certification confirming that the feeding of ruminants with protein derived from mammals has been banned and that the ban has been effectively enforced. Some exporting countries, such as Canada and the USA, are currently unable to meet these new requirements.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds02/text/20425w04.htm

BSE: US Export of Specified Risk Material

Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the United States contends that under the provisions enforceable by the World Trade Organisation the European Union may not ban the import into Europe from the United States of "specified risk material" (that is, material at possible risk of BSE infection).

Lord Donoughue: Yes. But their position on the Specified Risk Material legislation is based on the assumption that the United States can safely be regarded as a "BSE free" country. Their case for such treatment has not been accepted by the EU Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo971215/text/71215w02.htm

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as blood products which infected haemophiliacs with HIV came from the USA, is the Minister confident that something else nasty may not come again from imported blood from the USA? Is he aware that there are ways of cleaning blood to make it safer? I know that that is done in Vienna, in Austria. Will the Minister look into that? Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about people using their own blood, I am sure that, when this Statement goes out into the wider community, people will want to know that information.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/31217-09.htm

However, the Bio Products Laboratory who produce plasma products did export surplus products, under the Income Generation Regulations for the NHS, and used the income for the benefit of the health service.[21]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmpubacc/207/20703.htm#n21

43. Do you sell any of it abroad at all?
(Mr Gorham) No. The only circumstances in which we would export blood would be if there was an approach to the British Government and the British Government felt that it was appropriate to support an international emergency or something like that. We do supply the British Forces. We occasionally help out our colleagues in Wales and Scotland and they would reciprocate with us if that was appropriate. At the moment it is more or less totally contained within the United Kingdom.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmpubacc/207/1012904.htm

Blood and Blood Products

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of persons who have been inoculated with blood or blood products over the past three years in the United Kingdom. [61681]

Ms Jowell [holding answer 2 December 1998]: It is estimated that about one million people in the United Kingdom receive blood and blood products every year.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990210/text/90210w02.htm

Human vaccine prepared in animal brains

http://www.mad-cow.org/00/nov00_late_news.html#fff

http://www.whale.to/v/singeltary7.html

http://www.mad-cow.org/00/may00_news.html

http://www.mad-cow.org/00/jul00_dont_eat_sheep.html#hhh

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: BIOLOGICS -- CLASS I

_______________________________

PRODUCTHuman Tissue for Transplantation, Recall # B-0432-6:a) Tricortical Wedge (R) 1.5 x 2.5 cm,Freeze Dried Irradiated;b) Tricortical Wedge ( L ) 1.7 x 3.0 cm,Fresh Frozen Irradiated;c) Cancellous Crushed 60.0 cc, Freeze Dried,Irradiated;d) Cancellous Crushed 30.0 cc Freeze Dried,Irradiated;e) Achilles Tendon OA ( R ) Fresh FrozenIrradiated;f) Achilles Tendon OA ( L ) Fresh FrozenIrradiated;g) Lumbar;h) Cancellous Crushed 30.0 cc Fresh Frozen,IrradiatedCODEa) Tissue 04091-002;b) Tissue 04113-003;c) Tissues 04091-008, 04101-008, 04103-002,04103-003, 04105-003;d) Tissues 04091-005, 04091-006, 04091-007,04101-006, 04101-007, 04102-004, 04102-005,04104-003, 04104-004, 04104-005, 04105-002,04109-003, 04109-004, 04120-004, 04124-003,04124-004, 04138-002, 04138-003, 04140-002,04143-002, 04143-003, 04146-001, 04152-001;e) Tissues 04101-003, 04123-004;f) Tissues 04101-004, 04123-003;g) Tissues 03049-001, 03051-001, 04091-001,04102-001, 04103-001, 04104-001, 04105-001,04106-001, 04107-001, 04108-001, 04109-001,04113-001, 04120-001, 04122-001, 04123-001,04124-001;h) Tissue 04108-002RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Central Texas Regional Blood & Tissue Center, Austin, TX, bytelephone on October 4, 2005, and by letter dated October 11, 2005.Manufacturer: Biomedical Tissue Services, Fort Lee, NJ, firm initiatedrecall is ongoing.

REASON Human tissues, procured from donors without adequate donor eligibility determinations, were distributed. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 51 allografts DISTRIBUTION TX and CO PRODUCT Human Corneal Tissues for Transplantation, Recall # B-0380-6CODETissues: CI044108 OD and CI044108 OSRECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERMichigan Eye Bank, Ann Arbor, MI, by letter dated November 22, 2005, and byfacsimile dated November 28, 2005. Firm initiated recall is complete.

REASON Human Corneas, collected from an ineligible donor, were distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE2 tissuesDISTRIBUTIONMI, CA and Germany

_______________________________

PRODUCTa) Red Blood Cells Leukocytes Reduced,Recall # B-0617-6;b) Red Blood Cells (Apheresis) Leukocytes Reduced(distributed as split product), Recall # B-0618-6;c) Platelets Leukocytes Reduced, Recall # B-0619-6;d) Fresh Frozen Plasma, Recall # B-0620-6;e) Cryoprecipitated AHF, Recall # B-0621-6;f) Plasma Cryoprecipitate Reduced, Recall # B-0622-6;g) Recovered Plasma, Recall # B-0623-6CODEa) Unit numbers: 1136792, 1040212, 1011245;b) Unit numbers: 1048247-1, 1048247-2;c) Unit numbers: 1040212, 1011245;d) Unit number: 1136792;e) Unit numbers: 1040212, 1011245;f) Unit number: 1040212;g) Unit number: 1011245RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERHoxworth Blood Center, Cincinnati, OH, by letter dated September 6, 2005.Firm initiated recall is complete.REASONBlood products, collected from a donor considered to be at increased riskfor variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), were distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE12 unitsDISTRIBUTIONOH and FL

_______________________________

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 1, 2006###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00941.html

RE-REASON Human Corneas, collected from an ineligible donor, were distributed

http://www.mad-cow.org/dec99_news.html#bbb

PRODUCTRecovered Plasma, Recall # B-0643-6CODEUnit numbers: R170537, R165863, and R158308RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERPuget Sound Blood Center, Seattle, WA, by facsimile on October 7, 2003. Firminitiated recall is complete.REASONBlood products, which were collected from an unsuitable donor based on riskfactors for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), were distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 3 units DISTRIBUTION Austria END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2006###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00940.html

PRODUCTa) Product is 1.0 cc Regenaform® RT. SINGLE PATIENTUSE ONLY. Recall # Z-0481-06;b) OPTEFORM Allografts of varying sizes. SINGLE PATIENTUSE ONLY. Recall # Z-0482-06;c) Product is OPTEFORM Allograft Paste of varying sizes.SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0483-06;d) OPTEFORM® RT Moldable Allograft of varying sizes.SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0484-06;e) Osteofil + RT Allograft Paste in varying sizes.SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0485-06;f) Osteofil Allograft Paste (Bio) of varying sizes.SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0486-06;g) Osteofil IC Syringeable of varying sizes. SINGLEPATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # 0487-06;h) Osteofil ICM Moldable Strip of varying sizes.SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0488-06;i) Osteofil RT, ICM Allograft Paste of varying sizes.SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0489-06;j) OSTEOFIL® DBM Paste of varying sizes. SINGLEPATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0490-06;k) OsteoPack 3 FZ 22cc. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.Recall # Z-0491-06;l) Regenafil IC. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.Recall # Z-0492-06;m) REGENAFORM RT Allograft Paste, 1cc. SINGLEPATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0493-06;n) Product is REGENAFORM® Allograft Moldable Blocks,of varying sizes. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.Recall # Z-0494-06;o) Product is RTI Allograft Paste of varying sizes.SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0495-06;p) Product is REGENAFIL® Allograft Paste, Syringe,0.5cc. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # 0496-06;q) Product is 1.0cc flowable paste from donorapproved for distribution in Italy. SINGLEPATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0497-06;r) Product is OPTEFIL Allograft Paste of varyingsizes. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY. Recall# Z-0498-06;s) Product is OPTEFIL Allograft Paste, Syringeof varying sizes. SINGLE PATIENT USE ONLY.Recall # Z-0499-06;t) Product is OPTEFORM® Allograft Full Disc,5 x 90mm, 32cc, Frozen. SINGLE PATIENT USEONLY, Recall # Z-0500-06;u) Product is 2.0 cc Opteform® RT. SINGLEPATIENT USE ONLY. Recall # Z-0501-06CODE2879130 2879131 2879132 2879133 2879134 2879135 2879136 2879137 28791382879139 2879350 2879351 2879352 2879353 2879354 2879355 2879440 28794412879442 2879443 2879444 2879445 2879446 2879447 2879448 2879449 28794502879451 2879452 2879453 2879454 2879455 2879456 2879457 2879458

snip...literally 100s and 100s and 100s, much to many recalls to post here, first few and last few lines posted here... TSS

2667981 2667983 2667984 2667985 26679872667988 2667989 2669552 2669553 2669554 2669556 2669559 2669633 26696362669639 2669640 2669965 2669967 2669968 2669969 2669981 2669983 2669985

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERRegeneration Technologies, Inc., Alachua, FL, by letter on October 14, 2005.Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON The tissue was collected from donors for whom there is

___no verifiableidentity or consent___.

The medical records and social histories of the donorscannot be ascertained. The devices which incorporate these donor bonetissues undergo processing, including sterilization, which has beenvalidated to inactivate and/or remove all viral diseases for which humantissue donors are tested.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 5,320 DISTRIBUTION

Nationwide and Internationally END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 15, 2006###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00939.html

_______________________________

PRODUCTSource Plasma, Recall # B-0584-6CODEUnits VL53767, ZZ031076, ZZ030881, ZZ03046, VL151413, VL151144, VL50837RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERBioLife Plasma Services LP, Shreveport, LA, by facsimile dated October 6,2003. Firm initiated recall is complete.REASONSource Plasma, collected from a donor who was at increased risk for variantCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), was distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 7 units DISTRIBUTION NC END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2006###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00937.html

_______________________________

PRODUCTRed Blood Cells, Recall # B-0552-6CODEUnit number: 4426304RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERFlorida's Blood Center, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL, by facsimile on July 8,2005. Firm initiated recall is complete.REASONBlood product, collected from a donor who may have been at increased riskfor new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD), was distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE1 unitDISTRIBUTIONFLEND OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 25, 2006###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00936.html

RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: BIOLOGICS -- CLASS I

_______________________________

PRODUCTHuman Tissue for Transplantation, Recall # B-0322-6a) Alloquent CC Allograft (8, 9 & 10 mm);b) Achilles Tendon;c) Cancellous Bone 4-10 mm (15 & 30 cc);d) Patella Tendon-Hemi;e) Iliac Crest Wedge (14-17mm, 11-13mm,<10mm, and 18+mm);f) Tibialis TendonCODEa) Code: BS30-4008, BS30-4009, BS30-4010;b) Code: LATM;c) Code: LCISM & LCIPM;d) Code: LTTM;e) Code: LIWXLM, LIWLM, LIWMM, LIWSM;f) Code: LTTMRECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERRecalling Firm: Lost Mountain Tissue Bank, Kennesaw, GA, by letters datedOctober 12, and October 21, 2005.Manufacturer: Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., Fort Lee, NJ. Firm initiatedrecall is ongoing.REASONHuman tissues, procured from donors without adequate donor eligibilitydeterminations, were distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE283 tissuesDISTRIBUTIONNationwide and Turkey

_______________________________

PRODUCTPUROS Allograft Bone;Suspend Tutoplast Processed Fascia Lata,Recall # B-0375-6CODEa) U00000000045293 U00000000045294 U00000000045295 U00000000045296U00000000045297 U00000000045298 U00000000045299 U00000000045300U00000000045301 U00000000045302 U00000000045303 U00000000045368U00000000045369

snip...literally 100s and 100s and 100s, much to many recalls to post here, first few and last few lines posted here... TSS

BM04A11221A024041204BM03K10421A045031504 BM03K12121A045020904 BM03L10421A045020904BM03L10621A045020904 BM03L11621A045031504 BM03L11621B045031504BM03L12121A045031504 BM03J11421A048011904 BM03J11421B048011904BM03K12121A048020904 BM03L10621A048020904 BM03L10621B048020904BM03L11221A048020904 BM03L11521A048020904 BM03L11521B048020904

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Tutogen Medical, Inc., Alachua, FL, by telephone, facsimileand letter on October 14, 2005 and by letter dated October 24, 2005.Responsible Firm: Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., Fort Lee, NJ. Firminitiated recall is ongoing.

REASON Human Tissues, procured from donors __without adequate donor eligibility determinations__, were distributed.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

a) 5,676 allografts;

b) 48 allografts DISTRIBUTION

Nationwide, and Canada

_______________________________

PRODUCTa) Red Blood Cells, LeukocytesReduced, Recall # B-0492-6;b) Recovered Plasma, Recall # B-0497-6CODEa) and b) Unit number: 4101212RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERNorthwest Florida Blood Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL, by telephone andfacsimile on March 7, 2003. Firm initiated recall is complete.REASONBlood products, collected from an unsuitable donor due to a history oftravel to an area considered at increased risk of exposure to variantCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD), were distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 2 units DISTRIBUTION FL

_______________________________

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 18, 2006###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00935.html

PRODUCTSource Plasma, Recall # B-0391-6CODEUnit number: 7030260750RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERZLB Bioplasma, Inc., San Antonio, TX, by facsimile and telephone onSeptember 29, 2003. Firm initiated recall is complete.REASONBlood product, which was collected from a donor who was deferred due to riskfactors associated with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) travel, wasdistributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 1 unit DISTRIBUTION FL

_____________________________________________________________

PRODUCTa) Red Blood Cells, Leukocytes ReducedRecall # B-0456-6;b) Recovered Plasma, Recall # B-0457-6CODEa) Unit number: 06FR39967;b) Unit numbers: 06FR37676, 06FR39967RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERAmerican National Red Cross, Southern California Region, Pomona, California,by telephone on June 2, 2002, and by letter dated, June 20, 2002, and byfacsimile transmission dated June 19, 2002. Firm initiated recall iscomplete.REASONBlood products, collected from a donor who was at increased risk of variantCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), were distributed.VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE3 units DISTRIBUTION CA and Switzerland

_______________________________

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR JANUARY 4, 2006###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00933.html

EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)
Last updated: 19 July 2005
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

Report
Summary
Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.

Publication date: 20 August 2004

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573_it.html

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_summary_en1.pdf

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT July 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005

snip...

Administrative Actions Pending or Taken at Small HACCP Plants [includes actions initiated in prior quarters]

snip...

DESERET MEAT 04852 M SPANISH FORK, UT
07/27/05
08/01/05
X
X
On 7/27/05, a suspension action concerning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Specified Risk Material was taken in accordance with 9 CFR Part 500.3.

snip...

52 pages

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/QER_Q4_FY2005.pdf

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or

“Mad Cow Disease”): Current and Proposed

Safeguards

Updated October 13, 2005

Geoffrey S. Becker

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Resources, Science and Industry Division

Sarah A. Lister

Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology

Domestic Social Policy Division

SNIP...

snip...

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05oct/RL32199.pdf

Suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/BSE_Peer_Review.pdf

03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary

Page 1 of 17

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [flounder9@verizon.net]

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM

To: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov

Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements

for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Greetings FSIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and

Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;

SUB CLINICAL PRION INFECTION

MRC-43-00

Issued: Monday, 28 August 2000

NEW EVIDENCE OF SUB-CLINICAL PRION INFECTION: IMPORTANT RESEARCH

FINDINGS RELEVANT TO CJD AND BSE

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

P.O. Box 42

Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

9/13/2005

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

P.O. Box 42

Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

BSE ALABAMA Epidemiology Updates March 29, 2006

Epidemiology Updates

March 29, 2006
As of today, 14 locations and 44 movements of cattle have been examined with 34 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of locations and herds will continue. A location includes stockyards or farms where the index cow lived previously or where her immediate family members may have lived. The movements include any arrivals or departures from those locations.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_al_epi-update.shtml

THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING...TSS

PrP from soil by tomato plants

Greetings list members and Roland,

i thought i might ask about this, i find most interesting, and hope old
Roland might peek his head and and comment on this. I miss the old debates.
but Roland and or anyone, what do you think of this.
i remember the debates we had years ago on this topic, but i find this most
interesting and disturbing at the same time.

=====================================
Furthermore, an unpublished study had indicated low
level absorption of PrP from soil by tomato plants although it
should be noted that this study had not been repeated. Details of
this work would be sent to the SEAC Secretary.
=======================================

what study are they speaking of???

thank you in advance,

kind regards,
terry

snip...

http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/draft91.pdf

BSE ALABAMA UPDATE March 30, 2006 - Senate Passes Animal ID Bill

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

March 30, 2006 - Senate Passes Animal ID Bill (BSE)
MONTGOMERY – Commissioner Ron Sparks and State Veterinarian Dr. Tony Frazier with the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (ADAI) and the USDA have provided an update on their ongoing joint investigation of the cow that died from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Alabama.

March 30, 2006 - Senate Passes Animal ID Bill (BSE)

Today, the Alabama State Senate passed HB 254 with a vote of 20-6. This bill will provide for the confidentiality of information initially gathered by the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries as the department implements and maintains a database for Animal Identification in accord and consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System. Premises ID Registration has been implemented in the last year and Animal ID Registration is not far behind. The information on premises and animals, gathered at the request of Commissioner Sparks, is to protect the interest of public health, safety, and welfare.

“The Alabama Department of Agriculture & Industries’ system will comply with any USDA policies and we will not implement an animal ID system that would hurt Alabama farmers whether they raise 2 animals or 2,000 animals,” said Sparks. “I truly appreciate what the legislature has done for the farmers and consumers of Alabama.”

As of today, 14 locations and 44 movements of cattle have been examined with 39 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of locations and herds will continue. This process is to eliminate herds from the ongoing investigation.

A flow chart showing how the traceback process is progressing has been posted on the Alabama Department of Agriculture & Industries website www.agi.alabama.gov. As the chart illustrates, the investigation has broadened to include many farms and stockyards. The farms are where the index cow may have lived previously or where her immediate family members may have lived. The stockyards are places where investigators have reviewed records of transactions and conducted interviews. Each link is being thoroughly examined and then, based on the information collected the link will either continue on to another location or be closed.

Federal and state officials have stressed that it may not be possible to trace the index cow to her herd of origin due to the primitive traceback methods being used in the investigation. Eventually, leads in the case may be exhausted despite their best efforts.

The next update from ADAI will be sent Monday, April 3rd.

http://www.agi.state.al.us/press_releases/march-30-2006---senate-passes-animal-id-bill-bse?pn=2

Alabama BSE Case Trace Investigation March 29, 2006 chart

http://www.agi.state.al.us/uploads/wU/tL/wUtLnjRP_GE4XN_SybLv6Q/External-BSE-Chart.pdf

Epidemiology Updates

March 30, 2006
As of today, 14 locations and 44 movements of cattle have been examined with 39 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of locations and herds will continue. A location includes stockyards or farms where the index cow lived previously or where her immediate family members may have lived. The movements include any arrivals or departures from those locations.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_al_epi-update.shtml

FDA: US Won't Likely Find Source Of Latest BSE Infection

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Government investigators looking into the latest case of mad-cow disease in the U.S. won't likely be able to find the source of the cow's infection, a Food and Drug Administration official said Thursday.

Stephen Sundlof, director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, told reporters, "It's going to be nearly impossible to identify any particular feed."

Mad-cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is believed to be spread among cattle through feed containing infected cattle parts. The FDA has prohibited bovine material from being included in cattle feed since 1997.

If FDA could find the producer of the tainted feed that infected the cow - found on an Alabama farm earlier this month - it might be able to find how widely the feed was distributed.

But U.S. Department of Agriculture officials believe the cow was at least 10 years old when she was euthanized by a local veterinarian on the Alabama farm where she had resided for less than a year.

snip...full text;

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=26643

> But U.S. Department of Agriculture officials believe the cow was at least 10 years old

yea, and they believed no mad cows were not in the USA either. wrong! and i can list many other things they believed about human and animal TSE that they were wrong about, but i have listed them here before.

i dont believe them. you can do test on the teeth to determine how old they are, better than detention. where is the head??? show me the data, this is what others should be asking. ...

TSS

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################

Prions Adhere to Soil Minerals and REMAIN Infectious

Subject: Prions Adhere to Soil Minerals and Remain Infectious
Date: April 14, 2006 at 7:10 am PST

Prions Adhere to Soil Minerals

and Remain Infectious

Christopher J. Johnson1,2, Kristen E. Phillips3, Peter T. Schramm3, Debbie McKenzie2, Judd M. Aiken1,2,

Joel A. Pedersen3,4*

1 Program in Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 2 Department of Animal Health and Biomedical

Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 3 Molecular and Environmental Toxicology Center,

University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 4 Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United

States of America

An unidentified environmental reservoir of infectivity contributes to the natural transmission of prion diseases

(transmissible spongiform encephalopathies [TSEs]) in sheep, deer, and elk. Prion infectivity may enter soil

environments via shedding from diseased animals and decomposition of infected carcasses. Burial of TSE-infected

cattle, sheep, and deer as a means of disposal has resulted in unintentional introduction of prions into subsurface

environments. We examined the potential for soil to serve as a TSE reservoir by studying the interaction of the diseaseassociated

prion protein (PrPSc) with common soil minerals. In this study, we demonstrated substantial PrPSc

adsorption to two clay minerals, quartz, and four whole soil samples. We quantified the PrPSc-binding capacities of

each mineral. Furthermore, we observed that PrPSc desorbed from montmorillonite clay was cleaved at an N-terminal

site and the interaction between PrPSc and Mte was strong, making desorption of the protein difficult. Despite

cleavage and avid binding, PrPSc bound to Mte remained infectious. Results from our study suggest that PrPSc released

into soil environments may be preserved in a bioavailable form, perpetuating prion disease epizootics and exposing

other species to the infectious agent.

Citation: Johnson CJ, Phillips KE, Schramm PT, McKenzie D, Aiken JM, et al. (2006) Prions adhere to soil minerals and remain infectious. PLoS Pathog 2(4): e32. DOI: 10.1371/

journal.ppat.0020032

Introduction

snip...full text;

PLoS Pathogens | www.plospathogens.org April 2006 | Volume 2 | Issue 4 | e32 0007

Sorption of Prions to Soil

http://pathogens.plosjournals.org/archive/1553-7374/2/4/pdf/10.1371_journal.ppat.0020032-S.pdf

http://pathogens.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&file=10.1371_journal.ppat.0020032-L.pdf

Epidemiology Update March 23, 2006
As of today, 13 locations and 32 movements of cattle have been examined with
27 of those being substantially completed. Additional investigations of
locations and herds will continue. In addition, state and federal officials
have confirmed that a black bull calf was born in 2005 to the index animal
(the red cow). The calf was taken by the owner to a local stockyard in July
2005 where the calf died. The calf was appropriately disposed of in a local
landfill and did not enter the human or animal food chain.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_al_epi-update.shtml

> The calf was appropriately disposed of in a local
> landfill and did not enter the human or animal food chain.

well, back at the ranch with larry, curly and mo heading up the USDA et al,
what would you expect, nothing less than shoot, shovel and shut the be nice up.
no mad cow in USA, feed ban working, no civil war in Iraq either.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/4624/print

TSS

FINAL TESTING CONFIRMS BSE CASE IN B.C.

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.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/situatione.shtml

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

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2006/20060416e.shtml

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:

USDA STATEMENT ON CONCLUSION OF EPI OF ALABAMA MAD COW

Subject: USDA STATEMENT Regarding the Conclusion of the Epidemiological Investigation Into BSE POSITIVE IN ALABAMA
Date: May 3, 2006 at 7:13 am PST

May 2, 2006 - Sparks Announces Conclusion of Epi Investigation of BSE Positive Cow
MONTGOMERY – Commissioner Ron Sparks has announced that the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have completed their epidemiological investigation regarding a cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Alabama in March.

May 2, 2006 - Sparks Announces Conclusion of Epi Investigation of BSE Positive Cow
May 2, 2006 - Sparks Announces Conclusion of Epi Investigation of BSE Positive Cow

The results indicate that the positive animal, called the index animal, was a red crossbreed. This animal was non-ambulatory on the farm, known as the index farm, and examined by a local, private veterinarian. The veterinarian returned to the farm the following day, euthanized the animal and collected a sample, which was submitted for BSE testing. The animal was buried on the farm at that time and did not enter the animal or human food chain, in accordance with APHIS protocols.

Alabama officials and APHIS excavated the index animal’s carcass and through dentition, an examination of its teeth, determined the animal to be more than 10 years old. It was born prior to the implementation of FDA’s 1997 feed ban that minimizes the risk that a cow might consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE.

Alabama state officials and APHIS investigated 36 farms and 5 auction houses and conducted DNA testing on herds that may have included relatives of the index animal. State investigators and APHIS were unable to find any related animals except for the two most recent calves of the index animal. The most recent calf was located at the same farm as the index animal and the second calf died the year before. No other animals of interest were located. The living calf of the BSE-positive animal is currently being held at APHIS’ National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for observation.

The state and federal joint investigation did not reveal the BSE-positive animal’s herd of origin. However, this was not entirely unexpected due to the age of the animal, along with its lack of identifying brands, tattoos and tags. Experience worldwide has shown that it is highly unusual to find BSE in more than one animal in a herd or in an affected animal’s offspring.

To ensure that adequate feed controls were in place in the feed facilities in the immediate geographic area of the index farm, FDA conducted a feed investigation into local feed mills that may have supplied feed to the index animal after the 1997 feed ban. This investigation found that all local feed mills that handle prohibited materials have been and continue to be in compliance with the FDA’s feed ban.

As part of APHIS’ BSE enhanced surveillance program, more than 700,000 samples have been tested since June 2004. To date, only two of these highest risk animals has tested positive for the disease as part of the surveillance program, for a total of three cases of BSE in the United States. While APHIS’ epidemiological investigation did not locate additional animals of interest, it is important to remember that human and animal health in the United States is protected by a system of interlocking safeguards, which ensure the safety of U.S. beef. The most important of these safeguards is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply and the FDA's 1997 feed ban.

NOTE: For more information on USDA’s epidemiological investigation and a copy of the report, please visit the APHIS website at www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse.shtml.

Federal Contacts:
Jim Rogers, USDA 202-690-4755
Rae Jones, FDA 301-827-6242

http://www.agi.state.al.us/press_releases/may-2-2006---sparks-announces-conclusion-of-epi-investigation-of-bse-positive-cow?pn=2

Jim Rogers, USDA 202-690-4755
Rae Jones, FDA 301-827- 6242
Christy Rhodes, Alabama 334-240-7103

Statement by USDA Chief Veterinary Officer John Clifford Regarding the Conclusion of the Epidemiological Investigation Into a Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)-Positive Cow Found in Alabama
May 2, 2006

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have completed their investigations regarding a cow that tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Alabama in March. Both agencies conducted their investigations in collaboration with the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries.

“Our results indicate that the positive animal, called the index animal, was a red crossbreed. This animal was non-ambulatory on the farm, known as the index farm, and examined by a local, private veterinarian. The veterinarian returned to the farm the following day, euthanized the animal and collected a sample, which was submitted for BSE testing. The animal was buried on the farm at that time and did not enter the animal or human food chain, in accordance with APHIS protocols.

“APHIS and Alabama officials excavated the index animal’s carcass and through dentition, an examination of its teeth, determined the animal to be more than 10 years old. It was born prior to the implementation of FDA’s 1997 feed ban that minimizes the risk that a cow might consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE.

“APHIS and Alabama State officials investigated 36 farms and 5 auction houses and conducted DNA testing on herds that may have included relatives of the index animal. APHIS and State investigators were unable to find any related animals except for the two most recent calves of the index animal. The most recent calf was located at the same farm as the index animal and the second calf died the year before. No other animals of interest were located. The living calf of the BSE-positive animal is currently being held at APHIS’ National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for observation.

“APHIS’ investigation did not reveal the BSE-positive animal’s herd of origin. However, this was not entirely unexpected due to the age of the animal, along with its lack of identifying brands, tattoos and tags. Experience worldwide has shown that it is highly unusual to find BSE in more than one animal in a herd or in an affected animal’s offspring.

“To ensure that adequate feed controls were in place in the feed facilities in the immediate geographic area of the index farm, FDA conducted a feed investigation into local feed mills that may have supplied feed to the index animal after the 1997 feed ban. This investigation found that all local feed mills that handle prohibited materials have been and continue to be in compliance with the FDA’s feed ban.

“As part of APHIS’ BSE enhanced surveillance program, more than 700,000 samples have been tested since June 2004. To date, only two of these highest risk animals has tested positive for the disease as part of the surveillance program, for a total of three cases of BSE in the United States. While APHIS’ epidemiological investigation did not locate additional animals of interest, it is important to remember that human and animal health in the United States is protected by a system of interlocking safeguards, which ensure the safety of U.S. beef. The most important of these safeguards is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply and the FDA's 1997 feed ban. ”

#

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2006/05/alepi.shtml

Alabama BSE Investigation

Final Epidemiology Report

May 2, 2006

snip...

Summary:

Despite a thorough investigation of two farms that were known to contain the index cow,

and 35 other farms that might have supplied the index cow to the farms where the index

case was known to have resided, the investigators were unable to locate the herd of

origin. The index case did not have unique or permanent identification, plus, the size and

color of the cow being traced is very common in the Southern United States. Due to the

unremarkable appearance of solid red cows, it is not easy for owners to remember

individual animals. In the Southern United States, it is common business practice to buy

breeding age cows and keep them for several years while they produce calves. Most

calves produced are sold the year they are born, whereas breeding cows are sold when

there is a lapse in breeding, which can occur multiple times in cows’ lives. For all of

these reasons, USDA was unable to locate the herd of origin.

snip...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/content/printable_version/EPI_Final.pdf

Subject: [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0047] Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Availability of an Estimate of Prevalence in the United States
Date: May 3, 2006 at 7:10 am PST

[Federal Register: May 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 26019-26020]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03my06-36]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0047]

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Availability of an Estimate of
Prevalence in the United States

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an analysis of the prevalence
of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States has been
prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. We are
making the analysis of BSE prevalence in this country available to the
public.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the analysis are available for review on the
Internet (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below) and in our reading room.
The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building,
14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal
reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 690-2817 before coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Brian McCluskey, National
Surveillance Coordinator, National Surveillance Unit, Center for Animal
Health Surveillance, VS, APHIS, USDA, 2150 Centre Avenue, Fort Collins,
CO 80526-8177; 970-494-7589.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a
progressive and fatal neurological disorder of cattle that results from
an unconventional transmissible agent. BSE belongs to the family of
diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs).
Since 1990, the United States has conducted surveillance for BSE in
this country with increasing intensity, including an enhanced
surveillance effort implemented following the diagnosis of BSE in a cow
of Canadian origin in Washington State in December 2003.

[[Page 26020]]

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has
conducted an analysis of the BSE surveillance data collected in the
United States. Based on this analysis, APHIS has arrived at an estimate
of BSE prevalence in this country. This information will help to guide
and support any future requests for consideration of the overall BSE
status of the United States.
We are making our analysis of BSE prevalence in the United States
available to the public. This report is considered a draft and will
undergo peer review.
The analysis may be viewed on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_in_usa.shtml.
Click

on the document titled ``An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the
United States.'' The analysis may be also viewed on the Regulations.gov
Web site. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``Advanced

Search'' tab and select ``Docket Search.'' In the Docket ID field,
enter APHIS-2006-0047, click on ``Submit,'' then click on the Docket ID
link in the search results page. The analysis will appear in the
resulting list of documents.
You may request paper copies of the analysis by calling or writing
to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please
refer to the title of the analysis (``An Estimate of the Prevalence of
BSE in the United States'') when requesting copies. The analysis is
also available for review in our reading room (information on the
location and hours of the reading room is provided under the heading
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice).

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2006.
Elizabeth E. Gaston,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6-6728 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-6728.htm

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-6728.pdf

CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade. The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old. These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen. "The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that." Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive. USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general. "Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end

http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r

CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05, ...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm

CDC - Afterthoughts about Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and ... Afterthoughts about Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Paul Brown Senior Investigator, National Institutes of Health, ...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/brown.htm

PLEASE SEE FLAMING EVIDENCE THAT THE USDA ET AL COVERED UP MAD COW DISEASE IN TEXAS ;
PAGE 43; Section 2. Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Controls snip...
FULL TEXT 130 PAGES

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf

[GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

[2] [GAO-05-101 ] Mad Cow Disease: FDA's Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness Size: 104986 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=d05101.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle 03-025IFA 03-025IFA-2 Terry S. Singeltary

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

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...

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000534-01-vol45.pdf

Subject: Docket No: 2002N-0273 (formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food and Feed PAUL BROWNDate: 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. ........

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf

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.......

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273_emc-000134-02.pdf

THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: BSE OIE CHAPTER 2.3.13 (The Weakening of a already terribly flawwed BSE/TSE surveillance system)

http://p079.ezboard.com/fwolftracksproductionsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=470.topic

Audit Report Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II and Food Safety andInspection Service Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, andAdvanced Meat Recovery Products - Phase III

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showthread.php?t=120372

Subject: Re: Summary of Enhanced BSE Surveillance in the United States & BSE Prevalence Estimate for U.S. April 27, 2006Date: April 28, 2006 at 10:20 am PSTRelease No. 0143.06Contact:Ed Loyd (202) 720-4623Jim Rogers (202) 690-4755

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=167318;article=2815;title=CJD%20WATCH

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with larry, curly, and mo at USDA ET AL ON BSE ALABAMA STYLE

http://www.prwatch.org/node/4624

http://disc2.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=167318;article=2763;title=CJD%20WATCH

TSS

COW SENSE: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S BROKEN RECORD ON MAD COW

Subject: COW SENSE: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S BROKEN RECORD ON MAD COW DISEASE
Date: May 2, 2006 at 6:50 pm PST

1

COW SENSE:

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S BROKEN RECORD ON

MAD COW DISEASE

A WHITE PAPER OF THE

CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,

OMB WATCH AND CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA

The country’s third confirmed case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, better known

as “Mad Cow Disease,”1 was discovered on March 10, 2006, in a cow located on a farm

in Alabama. When discussing this latest case of mad cow disease with a concerned

public, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) John Clifford announced in the

same breath that the agency intends to scale back testing for the brain-wasting disorder

from 1000 to about 110 daily. The lower testing levels haven't been finalized, “but the

department’s budget proposal calls for 40,000 tests annually,” about one-tenth of the

current testing level.2

Because of the gravity of the potential problem—mad cow disease infected millions of

cattle in Britain and resulted in 160 fatal human illnesses as well3—details about the case

are particularly troubling. The veterinarian who examined the cow estimated that it was

around 10 years old—estimated, that is, because the lack of an animal identification

program of the sort already in place in Europe, Canada, and Japan means that the

government cannot know with certainty the animal’s age. Moreover, there is much more

we do not know: we cannot know with any certainty how many calves it had, or even the

farm where it was born and probably ate the feed containing the agent that causes mad

cow disease. Without this information, it becomes nearly impossible to trace animals that

may have consumed the same infected feed and to ensure that they don’t make it into the

human or animal food supply.

The country’s first confirmed case of mad cow disease was discovered on December 23,

2003. Three years later why is the public still in the dark when it comes to mad cow

disease? Why can’t we trace animals back to the source herd to discover the related cows

that may also present the same risk to the food chain? Why are there still loopholes in the

safety net that weaken our ability to prevent the spread of BSE in the nation’s cattle herd

or even to monitor the incidence of the disease? The answer is a string of broken

promises that trace back to the special influence of special interests in the Bush

administration.

1 “USDA/Alabama BSE Epidemiological Update: News Release.” United States Department of

Agriculture. .

2 Quaid, Libby. “Update 12: Government to Scale Back Mad Cow Testing.” The Associate Press on the

web March 14, 2006. .

3 “Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease in the UK: Press release.” UK Department of Health. March 8, 2005.

.

2

Surveillance and Industry Testing

Enhanced Surveillance

In response to the discovery of the first BSE-infected cow in the U.S. in December of

2003, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) instituted an

intensive animal health testing program for BSE. According to APHIS, the program was

designed as a one-time effort to provide a snapshot of the prevalence of BSE in the

domestic cattle population. The program was designed to test as many cattle from the

high-risk population as possible in a 12- to 18-month period. 4

Since 1994, APHIS has tested over 650,000 samples with two confirmed positives from

cattle that could have been born before the implementation of 1997 feed ban. But because

of a lack of paperwork and an animal identification system, we may never know the exact

age or origin of the cattle in question.

When the recent BSE case in Alabama was announced, USDA also proposed scaling

back the surveillance program to test just 40,000 animals a year. However, Secretary

Johanns has since retreated, saying the agency is not in a hurry to reduce testing.5

Private Firms

In February of 2004, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC, a privately owned producer

and processor, petitioned USDA to allow them to conduct private testing for mad cow

disease. The company wanted to regain entry into the Japanese beef market after Japan

closed its borders to American beef in 2003, citing BSE concerns. Of the roughly $3.9

billion in global sales of American beef in 2003, Japan accounted for $1.4 billion.6

Creekstone Farms was willing to address this concern by complying with Japan’s request

that every carcass exported to Japan be tested for BSE. But USDA refused the license

request. It is USDA’s contention that testing every animal or animals younger than 30

months is not scientifically justified or necessary.

While testing every animal for BSE is not necessary to assure food safety, private firms

like Creekstone should be able to voluntarily test for BSE, especially since they were

willing to do this at its own expense. USDA should not prohibit private companies from

testing their product. The Japanese government and consumers wanted all cattle tested for

mad cow disease and Creekstone was willing to comply with this request. By prohibiting

companies from giving their customers what they want, USDA is not only is restricting

free enterprise but also preventing companies from regaining the full value of their export

market. USDA’s action is in effect a disincentive for companies who are willing to go the

extra mile to address their customers concerns. It’s been over two years since Creekstone

4 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

.

5 The Associated Press. “USDA in no hurry to scale back mad cow tests.” MSNBC.com on the web March

27, 2006. .

6 “Renewed Japan Beef ban prompts U.S. probe” USA Today on the web January 20, 2006.

.

3

petitioned USDA to allow testing for BSE and U.S. companies still have not fully

regained access to Japanese markets.

Bush Administration’s Broken Promises

After the first BSE case was found in the U.S, the Bush administration made a string of

promises to ensure that the United States would not experience the kind of crisis in

consumer confidence that happened in Britain. As the policy decisions moved from the

press secretary’s lectern to the pages of the Federal Register, however, the Bush

administration began to break promise after promise. Two stand out: the failure to

implement a national animal identification and tracking system; and the failure to

produce a strong feed rule to prevent the nation’s cattle herd from consuming materials

that pose the risk of transmitting BSE.

Failure to Follow Through on Animal ID

On December 30, 2003, just seven days after the first mad cow was discovered in the

United States, Secretary Ann Veneman announced that the U.S. would expedite the

adoption of a “verifiable nationwide animal identification system to help enhance the

speed and accuracy of our response to disease outbreaks across many different animal

species.”7 This important announcement was followed by multi-million dollar

investments, including $18.8 million in 2004, and Congressional appropriations of $33

million in both 2005 and 2006.8 USDA, in a 2004 statement of Undersecretary Bill

Hawkes, said that the Animal Health Protection Act gave the agency “authority to

address the animal ID system in a mandatory fashion if we so choose.”

Animal identification programs are already used in many parts of the world, including

Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, to track animals and safeguard animal health.

Such systems are implemented to protect against the spread of animal diseases, some of

which also affect human health. Foot and mouth disease and bovine tuberculosis

outbreaks have historically been kept in check by controlling the movement of livestock.

When it comes to BSE, cattle identification provides critical information that helps to

identify animals from the same farm that years before may have eaten infected feed. (See

Table I.)

USDA began the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

on a voluntary basis in 2004. The long-term goal of the NAIS was to provide animal

health officials with the capability to identify all livestock and premises that have had

direct contact with a disease of concern within 48 hours after discovery.

7 “Veneman Announces Additional Protection Measures To Guard Against BSE: News Release No.

0449.03.” United States Department of Agriculture. December 3, 2003. < http://www.usda.

gov/Newsroom/0449.03.html>.

8 “Veneman Announces Framework and Funding for National Animal Identification System: News Release

No. 0170.04.” United States Department of Agriculture. April 27, 2004.

Newsroom/0170.04.html>.

4

While Veneman expressed urgency, in May 2005, Secretary Michael Johanns announced

that full recording of animal movements would be delayed until 2009.9 This extended

timeline reversed the expedited implementation promised by Secretary Veneman.

In a February 2006 meeting of a cattleman’s association called R-CALF, the NAIS

coordinator Neil Hammerschmidt said that the 2009 timeline would not be met, as the

agency had “no one working on rules to implement a mandatory program.”10 In a letter

to the Center for Science in the Public Interest in March 2006, USDA “clarified”

Hammerschmidt’s remarks by saying that “broad support for the NAIS will motivate a

majority of stakeholders to voluntarily participate. . . . Such market incentives could

obviate the need for our Agency to take regulatory action to make participation

mandatory.” Thus, Hammerschmidt was right – USDA had already decided that animal

identification and tracking programs would not be mandatory.

Failure to Follow Through on Cattle Feed Standards

Although cattle are ruminants that by nature eat grasses, the agribusiness practice today is

to fatten them up quickly with grains, animal proteins and other materials not typically in

a ruminant diet. Until 1997, when the practice was banned, feed manufacturers would

feed rendered cattle proteins back to cattle. This practice increased the risk of spreading

mad cow disease, as cattle were exposed to the infectious proteins (or “prions”) when

parts from infected cattle were allowed in cattle feed. This is the likely cause of the large

outbreak of BSE in cattle in Great Britain.

The Bush Administration announced plans to strengthen the feed ban in January 2004,

when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it would ban the use of

mammalian blood, poultry litter, and plate waste as feed ingredients for cattle and other

ruminants.11 Feeding plate waste and chicken litter back to cattle can recycle bovine

proteins into cattle feed.

These actions would have strengthened the feed ban and reduced the loopholes where

cattle materials could inadvertently enter cattle feed. A panel of international experts also

supported strengthening the U.S. feed ban, and urged that all animal feed should be free

of high risk cattle parts.12

9 “USDA Unveils Multi-Year Draft Strategic Plan the National Animal Identification System,” News

Release No. 0149.05.” United States Department of Agriculture. May 5, 2005.

10 “USDA abandons plan for mandatory animal ID by 2009.” Food Chemical News February 6, 2006.

47:52.

11 “Expanded "Mad Cow" Safeguards Announced To Strengthen Existing Firewalls Against BSE

Transmission: News Release.” United States Department of Health and Human Services. January 26, 2004.

.

12 International Review Team, Report on Measures Related to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in

the United States (Feb. 2, 2004)..

5

Instead of adopting these safeguards, in July 2004, FDA delayed action by announcing

another study of feed ban issues.13 Over a year later, in October 2005, the FDA proposed

minimal new restrictions on the animal feed industry – restrictions that live up to neither

their own promises nor the recommendations of the international experts.14

Special Access for Special Interests

So, why at the same time the third case of BSE was confirmed, did USDA even suggest

reducing its surveillance testing? And how did common sense protections – like the

animal identification system and safer animal feed – get scuttled or weakened beyond

recognition?

The reason? Former industry players are embedded throughout the Bush administration

and often play key roles in the agencies that are supposed to regulate those same

industries. More importantly, any time the USDA or FDA makes a promise to protect the

public, industry can use its own special hotline straight to the White House to promote its

cause.

Going Straight to the Top

Industry interests have aggressively lobbied the White House itself to distort the entire

continuum of mad cow-related policy. Although Congress delegates authority to regulate

food safety issues directly to the agencies, the White House has granted itself authority to

review agency rulemakings with a series of executive orders.15 The White House has

asserted a role in the earliest stages of policymaking by convening agencies to coordinate

regulatory priorities and by reviewing agency rulemaking agendas.16 It demands the right

to review proposed and final significant rules before they can be published in the Federal

Register.17 The White House receives—and, in fact, welcomes—ex parte

communications from industry in the course of its reviews. In accordance with the

executive order,18 the White House maintains a log of those meetings on the website for

the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA).19

These White House logs reveal that the feed and rendering industries brought their top

officials into numerous meetings both before and after BSE was found in the U.S. in

order to push back on BSE policy. The logs show six meetings regarding FDA’s

13 “USDA and HHS Strengthen Safeguards Against Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Press Release.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. July 9, 2004.

14 Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed, 70 Fed. Reg. 58569 (October 6, 2005)..

15 See Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).

16 See id. § 4.

17 See id. § 6.

18 See id. § 6(b)(4).

19 See Office of Info. & Reg. Affs., OMB, Meetings and Outside Communication.

whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/>.

6

consideration of the feed ban and three more regarding USDA policies on specified risk

materials and downer cattle, featuring a Who’s Who of the rendering and related

industries. (See Table II.)

The rendering industry in particular has much at stake, because that sector takes cow

parts — not just those that are left over after material for beef products are removed, but

also any useable parts from cattle excluded from the food chain, including downer cows

— to produce protein feeds, tallow, meat and bone meal, and a wide array of other

products. Many such products are used in animal feeds that can be fed to hogs and

poultry, and thus can be indirectly fed back to cows because of the loophole in the FDA

feed ban rules.

In fact, some of the companies that sent executives to meet with the White House had

direct experience with mad cow disease. For example, Baker Commodities, Inc., which

sent executive vice president Ray Kelly to speak with the White House on both the FDA

feed ban and USDA policy on downer cattle and dead stock, owns two of the rendering

plants that received portions of the 6-year-old Holstein that tested positive as the

country’s first confirmed case of mad cow. Likewise, another company represented in

White House meetings, Valley Proteins, generates products—which president Gerald

Smith cannot “guarantee . . . are free of cattle products”—that are “used to make feed for

East Coast poultry and turkey farmers.”20 The renderers’ industry group National

Renderers Association ensured that its sector was well represented in White House

meetings, but one representative in particular — Don Franco, president of the Animal

Protein Producers Industry and vice president of scientific services for the National

Renderers Association, stands out from the rest because he also has a role in influencing

policy at the USDA directly. Franco was appointed in 2002 to serve a two-year term on

the USDA National Foreign Animal and Poultry Disease Advisory Committee, which is

described approvingly by the rendering industry magazine as providing “valuable

information on methods, techniques, and policies directed at preventing the introduction

of foreign diseases without imposing impractical restrictions.”21

Not surprisingly, with all the industry pressure documented publicly in the meeting logs

(and possibly complemented by yet more meetings not logged because they were held

before any policy was officially under OMB review), the White House ordered changes

in the rules that were ultimately published in the Federal Register.

Foxes in the Henhouse

It is currently unknown whether the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) held

any meetings with the White House, because OIRA logs only meetings about regulations

being reviewed under the executive order and USDA has made it clear that no one in the

agency was attempting to draft a rule on animal identification. Of course, NCBA did not

20 Gay, Lance. “Rendering Scrutinized Because of Mad Cow” Cincinnati (Ky.) Post Oct. 1, 2004, : at A17,

available on Westlaw at 2004 WLNR 1340543.

21 “Franco Named to Committee.” Render Magazine, Feb. 2002.

.

7

need to petition the White House to influence the agency’s priorities, because NCBA’s

interests are already deeply embedded in the USDA itself.

The USDA has a number of former executives from NCBA and other allied industry

concerns at both high levels and important staff positions:

Dale Moore, Chief of Staff at USDA since 2001, was formerly the Director of

Legislative Affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association from 1997 until his

appointment in 2001. Before that, he worked on the industry dominated House

Agriculture Committee in various positions.

Alisa Harrison served as Press Secretary and Deputy Director of Communications under

both Secretaries Veneman and Johanns. She came over to USDA directly from the

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, where she was Executive Director of Public

Relations. Who better to handle the publicity following the first U.S. case of mad cow

disease. Clearly USDA was planning their public relations strategy long before their

public health response. Alisa Harrison is no longer at USDA.

Charles Lambert, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, served 15

years in various positions at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in Denver and

Washington. Up to 1979, he also ran a cow-calf operation in West-Central Kansas.

Floyd D. Gaibler, Deputy Under Secretary for Farm & Foreign Ag. Services, was most

recently a consultant at Lesher & Russel, Inc., an agricultural consulting firm whose

clients include Altria, Monsanto, and the Meat Promotion Coalition, a group of

agribusiness companied that includes the National Meat Association, the American

Meat Institute, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

8

Conclusion

“Cronyism” is more than just a rhetorical bludgeon: it is a very real problem in the Bush

administration, with very serious consequences for the American public. The Bush

administration has a consistent history of putting the cattlemen’s and other special

interests above the public interest, in a “special interest takeover” of government.22 It is a

recurring problem that weakens public protections in all areas, from mine safety to the

environment. As the background of mad cow policy reveals, it is a problem that reaches

even the very food we eat.

Both to improve domestic BSE protections and to increase the Bush Administration’s

chances of getting U.S. beef into global markets, it should reverse course and institute

real reforms on mad cow disease:

• Close the loopholes in the feed ban. FDA needs to further reduce the risk of

BSE from infected animals that are not caught by its limited surveillance program

from being recycled into the cattle feed supply. Eliminating the use of bovine

blood products, chicken litter, and plate waste from animal feed is the first step.

Eliminating the use of high-risk cattle parts in all animal feed would be the most

protective. Without an animal identification and tracking system to find exposed

cattle, the risk that some of these cattle parts are getting into the food and feed

supplies is certainly elevated.

• Implement the mandatory animal ID system. The USDA should implement

the animal tracking system that is already thoroughly planned, has a multi-million

dollar investment of taxpayer funds, and has many key pieces in place. Canada

implemented its mandatory program within a single year. The United States has

been working on the animal ID plan since before 2003. It has the legal authority

but lacks the political will to implement a world class system, like those relied on

in many other countries. With nearly $100 million invested in the program,

USDA should make good on its promises and implement a mandatory system by

January 2007.

• Until USDA has a program in place to identify cattle that were exposed to

infected feed, USDA should (1) test all cattle of any age showing signs of central

nervous system disease; (2) continue a high-intensity testing system of all cattle

30 months or older; and (3) test a random sampling of healthy animals 20 to 30

months old. Companies that want to test their own cattle should not be prohibited

from doing so by the government.

• Cut off the special interest hotline to the White House. When it comes to mad

cow disease, the White House Office of Management and Budget has seen a

22 See generally Center for Amer. Prog. & OMB Watch. “Special Interest Takeover: The Bush

Administration and the Dismantling of Public Safeguards (2004).”

.

9

parade of special interest lobbyists who have had an impact on reducing the level

of protection that the Bush Administration promised, but never delivered.

Centralizing regulatory review in the White House gives industry a one-stop shop:

what they can’t achieve by having industry insiders staffing the agencies, they can

get by sitting down with the Bush administration’s top officials. Congress should

shut down this special access for special interests.

With these simple remedies, the Bush administration and Congress would ensure that the

next time someone claims to be sickened by the culture of corruption in the Bush

administration and its cozy ties with industry, the claim is merely rhetorical — not literal.

10

Table I

Does Animal ID Work?

Comparing Canada’s mandatory tracking system

with the U.S. system

CANADA Confirmed BSE Cases1

Proportion of Birth Cohort

Identified

Percentage

May 20, 2003; Alberta, Canada

undetermined

undetermined

Dec 23, 2003; Washington State*

Birth herd in Alberta, Canada

55 out of 57

96%

Jan 2, 2005; Alberta, Canada

135 out of 135

100%

Jan 11, 2005; Alberta, Canada

349 out of 349

100%

Jan 22, 2006; Alberta, Canada

156 out of 156

100%

U.S. Confirmed BSE Cases

Proportion of Birth Cohort

Identified

Percentage

Dec 23, 2003; Washington State1*

Herd imported to United States in 2001

Animals imported & also from birth herd

29 out of 81

14 out of 25

36%

56%

June 24, 2005; Texas2

146 out of 200

73%

March 15, 2006; Alabama3

Pending

Pending

*The U.S. cow originated from Alberta, Canada.

1 CFIA, BSE in North America, Completed Investigations, available at:

2 USDA APHIS, Texas BSE Investigation, Final Epidemiology Report, August 2005, available at:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf

3 USDA/Alabama BSE Epidemiological Update, aavailable at:

11

Table II

Meatings

An Overview of White House Meetings

With Special Interests on Mad Cow Policy

Office of Management and Budget Meetings on USDA Policies

Regarding Specified Risk Materials and Downer Cattle

2005 July 5 Australian Embassy

July 12 North American Casing Association

August 11 North American Casings Association – oral

contact

October 18 Darling International

Baker Commodities

National By-Products

National Renderers Association

Office of Management and Budget Meetings on FDA Policies Regarding

Ruminant Feed

2002 August 12 American Feed Industry Association

August 21 Darling International

Baker Commodities

National By-Products

September 26 National Renderers Association

2005 August 23 Darling International

Valley Proteins

Kaluzny Bros.

Griffin Industries

Anamax Group

National By-Products

National Renderers Association

August 24 American Feed Industry Association

August 26 Pet Food Industry

Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

American Meat Institute

National Grain & Feed Association

Canadian Meat Council

http://www.ombwatch.org/regs/2006/cowsense.pdf

913. SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED

Agency:

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Priority:

Other Significant

Legal Authority:

21 USC 321; 21 USC 342; 21 USC 343; 21 USC 349; 21 USC 371

CFR Citation: (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)

21 CFR 589.2001

Legal Deadline:

None

Abstract:

On October 6, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to amend its regulations to prohibit the use of certain cattle origin materials in the food or feed of all animals to help strengthen existing safeguards to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in U.S. cattle. The discovery of a BSE-positive dairy cow in December 2003 has caused FDA to review its policies for prevention of BSE which resulted in this rulemaking.

Timetable: Action Date FR Cite
ANPRM 07/14/04 69 FR 42288
ANPRM Comment Period End 08/13/04
NPRM 10/06/05 70 FR 58569
NPRM Comment Period End 12/20/05
Final Action 07/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

Yes

Small Entities Affected:

Businesses

Government Levels Affected:

None

Agency Contact:

Burt Pritchett, Biologist, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, HFV-222, 7519 Standish Place, MPN-4, Rockville, MD 20855

Phone: 240 453-6860

Fax: 240 453-6882

Email: burt.pritchett@fda.hhs.gov

RIN:

0910-AF46

http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/cgi-bin/ua/web_fetch_doc?dataset=ua&db=agendaSpring2006&query=and&doc_id=913

914. USE OF MATERIALS DERIVED FROM CATTLE IN HUMAN FOOD AND COSMETICS

Agency:

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Priority:

Other Significant

Legal Authority:

21 USC 342; 21 USC 361; 21 USC 371

CFR Citation: (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)

21 CFR 189.5; 21 CFR 700.27

Legal Deadline:

None

Abstract:

On July 14, 2004, FDA issued an interim final rule (IFR), effective immediately, to prohibit the use of certain cattle material, to address the potential risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), in human food, including dietary supplements, and cosmetics. Prohibited cattle materials under the IFR include specified risk materials, small intestine of all cattle, material from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected and passed for human consumption, and mechanically separated (MS) (Beef). Specified risk materials are the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia of cattle 30 months and older; and the tonsils and distal ileum of the small intestine of all cattle. Prohibited cattle materials do not include tallow that contains no more than 0.15 percent hexane-insoluble impurities and tallow derivatives. This action minimizes human exposure to materials that scientific studies have demonstrated are highly likely to contain the BSE agent in cattle infected with the disease. Scientists believe that the human disease variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) is likely caused by the consumption of products contaminated with the agent that causes BSE. After reviewing comments received to the interim final rule, FDA intends to issue a final rule.

On September 7, 2005, FDA amended the IFR to permit the use of small intestine in human food and cosmetics if it is effectively removed from the distal ileum. The amendment also clarified that milk and milk products, hides, and tallow derivatives are not prohibited for use in human food and cosmetics.

Timetable: Action Date FR Cite
Interim Final Rule 07/14/04 69 FR 42256
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 10/12/04
Interim Final Rule (Ammendments) 09/07/05 70 FR 53063
Final Action 07/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

No

Small Entities Affected:

No

Government Levels Affected:

None

Agency Contact:

Morris E. Potter, Lead Scientist for Epidemiology, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, HFS-032, 60 Eighth St., NE, Atlanta, GA 30309

Phone: 404 253-1225

Fax: 404-253-1218

Email: morris.potter@fda.hhs.gov

RIN:

0910-AF47

http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/cgi-bin/ua/web_fetch_doc?dataset=ua&db=agendaSpring2006&query=and&doc_id=914

915. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR HUMAN FOOD AND COSMETICS MANUFACTURED FROM, PROCESSED WITH, OR OTHERWISE CONTAINING MATERIAL FROM CATTLE

Agency:

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Priority:

Other Significant

Legal Authority:

21 USC 342; 21 USC 361; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 381

CFR Citation: (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)

21 CFR 189.5; 21 CFR 700.27

Legal Deadline:

None

Abstract:

On July 14, 2004, FDA proposed to require that manufacturers and processors of human food and cosmetics that are manufactured from, processed with, or otherwise contain, material from cattle must establish and maintain records sufficient to demonstrate the food or cosmetic is not manufactured from, processed with, or does not otherwise contain, prohibited cattle materials. This is a companion rulemaking to FDA's interim final rule entitled "Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics." FDA intends to finalize this proposal after reviewing any comments received.

Timetable: Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 07/14/04 69 FR 42275
NPRM Comment Period End 08/13/04
Final Action 09/00/06

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:

No

Small Entities Affected:

Businesses

Government Levels Affected:

None

Agency Contact:

Rebecca Buckner, Consumer Safety Officer, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, HFS-366, College Park, MD 20740

Phone: 301 436-1486

Fax: 301 436-2632

Email: rebecca.buckner@fda.hhs.gov

RIN:

0910-AF48

http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/cgi-bin/ua/web_fetch_doc?dataset=ua&db=agendaSpring2006&query=and&doc_id=915

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/0/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d?OpenDocument

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/03n0312/03N-0312_emc-000001.txt

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be07.html

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be09.html

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3681s2_09.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm

TSS

Medical Waste and CJD 2003 guidelines CDC

Waste Reduction by Waste Reduction, Inc.
2910-D Fortune Circle West
Indianapolis, IN 46241
Phone: 317.484.4200
Fax: 317.484.4201
www.wr2.net
Comments on FDA Proposed Rulemaking - Docket No. 2002N-0273
From a public health standpoint, we are surprised and concerned that the
FDA would consider disposal of the brain and spinal cord of cattle over 30
months of age, the material it considers the highest risk SRM, through
landfill or incineration (page 44). It has been well demonstrated that there
is no reduction in potential infectivity of BSE contaminated material sent
to
landfill. Incineration of animal material is an extremely inefficient
process;
animal tissues do not make good fuel being 65% to 70% water. Further,
without specifying the conditions of temperature, residence time, and
agitation, there is no control over the efficiency of the proposed
incineration.
The work of Paul Brown at NIH has clearly shown that the infectivity of
prions (in that case 256K scrapie agent) could survive a temperature of
600ºC for 15 minutes, conditions virtually never reached in routine
incinerators. Alkaline hydrolysis at elevated temperature* has been
demonstrated to destroy infectivity even of the most virulent strain of BSE.
i.e., 301V mouse –passaged BSE, and has been included in EU legislation
as a disposal method for all Category 1 material, including known
BSEcontaminated
material.
We agree strongly with FDA’s concerns about cross contamination, not only
between ruminant feed processing lines and SRM destruction lines but also
between clean ruminant feed made from fresh animal and plant material
and ruminant feed contaminated with chicken droppings, non-ruminant feed
that could contain SRM, blood, and other waste products. While the
infectious dose quoted in Reference 13, 0.01gram of brain tissue from a
BSE infected animal, is frightening enough, a report that appeared after the
publication of the proposed rulemaking suggests that the actual infectious
dose may be as little as one-tenth that amount. While these possible
routes of infection of cattle are of serious concern, a potentially more
direct
route of infection of humans has not been adequately considered or
discussed in connection with the banning of SRM from animal feed. It is an
unfortunate fact in this country that many poor people derive their major
protein intake from the eating of pet foods. Thus, the possible inclusion of
SRM in those products could pose a direct threat to human health. The
eating of pet foods by poor people was one of the primary reasons for the
banning from pet foods of material derived from animals euthanized with
barbiturates. SRMs included in per food could pose a similar significant
threat.
We are also uncomfortable with the elimination of the small intestine of
cattle younger than 30 months of age as SRM. Absorption in the small
intestine is the primary route of infection for the prions that cause Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy and it has been demonstrated that these
Waste Reduction by Waste Reduction, Inc.
* In the spirit of full disclosure, it must be noted that WR2 is the
developer of the Alkaline Hydrolysis
Process and the manufacturer of Tissue Digestors™ for the use of the
Process.
agents can localize and reproduce in the lymph nodes of the intestine
before they travel to the central nervous system. For that reason, we
believe that the small intestine of all cattle, or, at least, the terminal
ileum of
all cattle, even those younger than 30 months of age, should be designated
as SRM and removed from the human and animal food chains. While we
realize that this would significantly increase the amount of SRM that
needed to be destroyed, we also believe that the necessary infrastructure
for that destruction, using scaled-up versions of current alkaline
hydrolysis
technology, could rapidly be deployed either as fixed-base plants or as
large-scale mobile systems. While some of the numbers quoted in the
discussion section of the proposed rulemaking for the amount of SRM to be
generated seem very large, efficient use of as few as 100 alkaline
hydrolysis systems capable of processing 20,000 pounds per cycle and as
few as only three cycles per day could process the 2 billion pounds per year
reported on page 25 of the proposed rulemaking.
We must also question the cost estimates for disposal made by ERG. No
specific estimate for any of the proposed disposal methods is presented;
rather, a lump sum “low-end” estimate is given with no relation to any
method. We do not know how they derived any figures on the cost of
alkaline hydrolysis for their analysis as they did not contact us or, to the
best of our knowledge, any of the sites currently using large volume Tissue
Digestors™. Operating costs for these Digestors (not including labor and
amortization of capital equipment) range between $2.5 per 100 lbs and $4
per 100 lbs, far less than the $12 average cited. Further, considering that
the ERG survey had to have been made some months before the
publication of the proposed rulemaking, it could not have taken into account
the dramatic increase in natural gas costs to fuel the proposed incinerator
disposal pathway. Thus, even the apparently high estimates presented that
must include this as, perhaps, the primary disposal pathway are probably
much too low under present circumstances.
In summary, although we accept that the proposed rulemaking may be an
improvement over the present unregulated situation with regard to the use
of SRM in animal feeds, we do not believe it is inclusive enough nor goes
far enough. We believe the original proposal from FDA would provide
significantly greater protection of public health than the currently
proposed
regulation.

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC232-Attach-1.pdf

tss

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 5:01 PM
Subject: Medical Waste and CJD 2003 guidelines CDC

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################

Medical Waste and CJD 2003 guidelines CDC ?
Mon May 1, 2006 16:56
71.248.145.247

Managing Fluid Disposal
Part I of II
By Kathy Dix

Operating room (OR) personnel are frequently overwhelmed by their numerous
responsibilities of not only “fixing” the patient, but also preventing
infection, maintaining a sterile field, utilizing only sterile instruments,
and in general, ensuring the patient’s safety, as well as that of the OR
staff. Proper fluid management is one of those crucial steps to preserving
the wellbeing of both staff and patient.

Has your OR personnel been trained in the disposal of liquid waste? Are they
aware of state and/or city regulations? Is their bloodborne pathogen
training recent? Is annual competency testing required?

snip...

Of special interest, APIC’s guidelines also point out the more recent
anxiety related to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). “Concerns also have been
raised about the need for special handling and treatment procedures for
wastes generated during the care of patients with CJD or other transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs),” the guidelines observe. “Prions, the
agents that cause TSEs, have significant resistance to inactivation by a
variety of physical, chemical, or gaseous methods. No epidemiologic
evidence, however, links acquisition of CJD with medical-waste disposal
practices. Although handling neurologic tissue for pathologic examination
and autopsy materials with care, using barrier precautions, and following
specific procedures for the autopsy are prudent measures, employing
extraordinary measures once the materials are discarded is unnecessary.
Regulated medical wastes generated during the care of the CJD patient can be
managed using the same strategies as wastes generated during the care of
other patients. After decontamination, these wastes may then be disposed in
a sanitary landfill or discharged to the sanitary sewer, as appropriate.”1

http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/articles/651feat3.html

Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control

in Health-Care Facilities

Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control

Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Atlanta, GA 30333

2003

snip...

6. Medical Waste and CJD

Concerns also have been raised about the need for special handling and
treatment procedures for wastes

generated during the care of patients with CJD or other transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies

(TSEs). Prions, the agents that cause TSEs, have significant resistance to
inactivation by a variety of

physical, chemical, or gaseous methods.1427 No epidemiologic evidence,
however, links acquisition of

CJD with medical-waste disposal practices. Although handling neurologic
tissue for pathologic

examination and autopsy materials with care, using barrier precautions, and
following specific

117

procedures for the autopsy are prudent measures,1197 employing extraordinary
measures once the

materials are discarded is unnecessary. Regulated medical wastes generated
during the care of the CJD

patient can be managed using the same strategies as wastes generated during
the care of other patients.

After decontamination, these wastes may then be disposed in a sanitary
landfill or discharged to the

sanitary sewer, as appropriate. .........

snip...

http://www.apic.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search§ion=CDC1&template=/CM/Con
tentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=342

VARIANT CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE (vCJD) and BLOOD

COMPONENTS

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS, February 2006

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/cjd/BC-InfoforP.pdf

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/cjd/frameworkannex1-Aug2005.pdf

© 2006 American Society for Investigative Pathology

Detection and Localization of PrPSc in the Skeletal Muscle of Patients with
Variant, Iatrogenic, and Sporadic Forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Alexander H. Peden, Diane L. Ritchie, Mark W. Head and James W. Ironside
From the National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit and Division
of Pathology, School of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of
Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) differs from other human prion
diseases in that the pathogenic prion protein PrPSc can be detected to a
greater extent at extraneuronal sites throughout the body, principally
within lymphoid tissues. However, a recent study using a high-sensitivity
Western blotting technique revealed low levels of PrPSc in skeletal muscle
from a quarter of Swiss patients with sporadic CJD (sCJD). This posed the
question of whether PrPSc in muscle could also be detected in vCJD, sCJD,
and iatrogenic (iCJD) patients from other populations. Therefore, we have
used the same high-sensitivity Western blotting technique, in combination
with paraffin-embedded tissue blotting, to screen for PrPSc in muscle tissue
specimens taken at autopsy from 49 CJD patients in the United Kingdom. These
techniques identified muscle PrPSc in 8 of 17 vCJD, 7 of 26 sCJD, and 2 of 5
iCJD patients. Paraffin-embedded tissue blotting analysis showed PrPSc in
skeletal muscle in localized anatomical structures that had the
morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of nerve fibers. The
detection of PrPSc in muscle tissue from all forms of CJD indicates the
possible presence of infectivity in these tissues, suggesting important
implications for assessing the potential risk of iatrogenic spread via
contaminated surgical instruments.

http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/3/927

SEAC 2006

21. Dr Matthews noted that data are now available on the infectivity of

a wide range of bovine tissues. In September 2005, the World

Health Organisation had updated its assessment of the risk of TSE

infectivity in tissues. These data, although incomplete, should

increase confidence in the safety of particular tissues, particularly if

the age of the source animal is also considered. As a result, less

reliance need now be placed on the status of the country of origin.

Members agreed, but noted that it would be important to assess

the quality of the data on which assessments are based. As it

seems highly likely that blood, at least from humans infected with

vCJD, can be infectious, tissues and organs with a significant

blood supply may also confer higher risk.

http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/draft-91.pdf

THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS FOR TSE ARE STILL UNKNOWN, but from recent
science coming out lately, the risk factor seems to be increasing, rather
than decreasing.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT IS STILL ACCEPTABLE FOR sanitary
landfill or discharged to the sanitary sewer, as appropriate FOR CJD, when
the epidemiology of all phenotypes of sporadic CJDs are not known to date,
and with apparent new ones of 'unknown' origin being documented as we
speak???

http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html

THE practice of landfilling and or the discharging to the sanitary sewer,
and or spreading to land as fertilizer of any human and or animal TSE should
be banned immediately. ...TSS

TSS

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
####################

#####################

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

BSE on the rise in Poland

By staff reporter

28/04/2006 - Poland has confirmed a new case of BSE in one of its cows, as figures suggest the disease has crept forward in the country amid a rapid fall in outbreaks elsewhere in the world.

Poland's agriculture ministry said its routine sampling procedure had found a further case of mad cow disease in the country's Lodz province.
Veterinary authorities said they had begun investigating how the cow became infected.

The news shows how BSE, known in full as Bovine Spongiform Encepalopathy, continues to be a thorn in Poland's side as it works to improve food safety and quality standards.

Recent figures from the World Organisation for Animal Health, show that cases of BSE in Poland have been increasing over the last few years. The country reported no outbreaks between 1989 and 2000, but cases have crept up from four in 2001 to 19 last year.

The figures also found BSE cases rising, albeit on a small scale, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Czech Republic confirmed eight cases last year, compared to two in 2001.

The trend is something food safety watchdogs in Eastern Europe will be wary of amid reports of dramatic drops in BSE cases elsewhere in the world.

The number of BSE-infected cows fell by 50 per cent in 2005 compared to 2004, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, which worked closely with the World Organisation for Animal Health to compile its report.

The FAO said just 474 animals died of BSE around the world, compared with 878 in 2004 and 1,646 in 2003, and against a peak of several tens of thousands in 1992.

“It is quite clear that BSE is declining and that the measures introduced to stop the disease are effective," stated Andrew Speedy, an FAO animal production expert. "But further success depends on our continuing to apply those measures worldwide.”

European consumption of beef has slowly been rising as public fears have diminished. For the first time in 20 years consumption of beef and veal surpassed EU production in 2003 and is expected to grow further by 2012, according to a recent forecast report by the European Commission.

http://www.cee-foodindustry.com/news/ng.asp?id=67381

MY POINT EXACTLY...TSS

----- Original Message -----
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
To: news@ens-news.com
Cc: christopher.matthews@fao.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: re-Mad Cow Disease Dying Out Worldwide

Greetings,

In reply to the statement made by the FAO AND OIE;

Mad cow disease on the wane worldwide
Rapid rate of decline encouraging
23 March 2006, Rome - Cases of Bovine Spongiform Encepalopathy (BSE) or “mad cow disease” worldwide are declining, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). They have been dropping at the rate of some 50 percent a year over the past three years, the Organization said today.

Amid the current international alarm over avian flu, it is good news that the battle against another worrying disease is being won.

In 2005, just 474 animals died of BSE around the world, compared with 878 in 2004 and 1646 in 2003, and against a peak of several tens of thousands in 1992, according to figures collected by the Paris-based World Animal Health Organization (OIE), with which FAO works closely.

Only five human deaths resulting from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), believed to be the human form of BSE, were reported worldwide in 2005. All of them were in the United Kingdom – the country most affected by the disease – where nine deaths were registered in 2004 and 18 in 2003. ...

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000258/index.html

'Mad Cow Disease Dying Out Worldwide'
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-28-02.asp

I would kindly like to reply;

I find this statement to be without any merit at all. HOW can one conclude that BSE or other TSEs are dying out worldwide, when the surveillance of BSE/TSE to any creditable extent is only practiced in EU states and Japan. NO one knows the true extent in these other countries where a surveillance system for BSE/TSE has never been enforced. For example, in North America alone, the USDA et al have no idea what the true extent of the BSE/TSE are in the USA cattle population. ONE needs to look no further than the State of Texas and what has happened there time and time again with BSE in cattle. The first 500,000 test of the infamous June 2004 Enhanced BSE surveillance program was terribly flawed from the beginning, and proven to be so, with flawed BSE testing protocol with the IHC testing minus WB confirmation. THESE tests were meaningless and should be done over. HOW can one lay claim to mad cow dying out worldwide, when some countries have never even had a documented surveillance system for BSE/TSE set up? I find this report by the FAO and the OIE, which by the way, whos regulations of BSE failed us terribly to begin with, and continue to fail us today, especially by accepting the 'Minimal Risk Region' regulations the USA started, once the USA documented there first case of BSE. One only has to look at the countries that followed the BSE guidelines by the OIE, most of which all came down with BSE even after following the flawed protocol of the OIE. This report is terribly misleading and in fact in my opinion, it is FALSE, should be retracted and corrected with the truth. The truth is, BSE has been reduced greatly in most all EU countries that have indeed followed the ruminant to ruminant feed ban, cross contamination guidelines, etc. but they have no idea about the rest of the world, especially the USA and all of North America. This agent goes much further than the ukbsenvcjd only theory leads you do to believe. The USA is infected with CWD in deer and elk, scrapie in sheep and goats to a lesser extent, and TME in mink, besides the TSE i.e. BSE they have documented in the USA bovine, but what about atypical TSEs? (please see references below)

Thank you,
kind regards,

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

SOURCE ............SNIP..........END................TSS

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################

BSE GBR ASSESSMENTS

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/catindex_en.html

EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)
Last updated: 19 July 2005
Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

Report
Summary
Summary of the Scientific Report

The European Food Safety Authority and its Scientific Expert Working Group on the Assessment of the Geographical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk (GBR) were asked by the European Commission (EC) to provide an up-to-date scientific report on the GBR in the United States of America, i.e. the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, in USA. This scientific report addresses the GBR of USA as assessed in 2004 based on data covering the period 1980-2003.

The BSE agent was probably imported into USA and could have reached domestic cattle in the middle of the eighties. These cattle imported in the mid eighties could have been rendered in the late eighties and therefore led to an internal challenge in the early nineties. It is possible that imported meat and bone meal (MBM) into the USA reached domestic cattle and leads to an internal challenge in the early nineties.

A processing risk developed in the late 80s/early 90s when cattle imports from BSE risk countries were slaughtered or died and were processed (partly) into feed, together with some imports of MBM. This risk continued to exist, and grew significantly in the mid 90’s when domestic cattle, infected by imported MBM, reached processing. Given the low stability of the system, the risk increased over the years with continued imports of cattle and MBM from BSE risk countries.

EFSA concludes that the current GBR level of USA is III, i.e. it is likely but not confirmed that domestic cattle are (clinically or pre-clinically) infected with the BSE-agent. As long as there are no significant changes in rendering or feeding, the stability remains extremely/very unstable. Thus, the probability of cattle to be (pre-clinically or clinically) infected with the BSE-agent persistently increases.

Publication date: 20 August 2004

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573_it.html

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_summary_en1.pdf

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf

EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of Mexico

Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

[Last updated 08 September 2004]

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/565/sr04_biohaz02_mexico_report_v2_en1.pdf

EFSA Scientific Report on the Assessment of the Geographical BSE-Risk (GBR) of the United States of America (USA)

Adopted July 2004 (Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-083)

[Last updated 08 September 2004]

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/573/sr03_biohaz02_usa_report_v2_en1.pdf

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]

http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/gbr_assessments/564/sr02_biohaz02_canada_report_v2_en1.pdf

4. Professor Richard Marsh has recently described an outbreak of TME in which
the owner routinely fed cattle material (DEAD STOCK) to mink but claimed
NEVER to have fed sheep material. This raises a theoretical possibility that sheep
(and goats) may not be the only animal reservoir of scrapie-like agents...

full text;

a review of research work at home and abroad

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11c/tab01.pdf

1994 UK EXPORTS BEEF VEAL USA , MEXICO $ CANADA ONLY
other Countries list in PDF file)

USA -------- TOTALS ''8'' TONS
CANADA -- TOTALS ''29'' TONS

1995 UK EXPORT BEEF AND VEAL TO USA AND CANADA

USA ------- TOTALS ''358'' TONS

CANADA --TOTALS ''24'' TONS

BONE-IN BEEF AND VEAL

USA-------- TOTALS ''10'' TONS (i think this is part of the 358 tons
above?)

UK EXPORT OF LIKE CATTLE TO USA AND CANADA

1986 TO 1996 USA TOTAL = 1297

1986 TO 1996 CAN TOTAL = 299

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab10.pdf

UK EXPORT MEAT OR OFFAL OF BOVINE ANIMALS DEC 1987

CANADA -- 64,526 KG

UK EXPORT OFFALS OF BOVINE ANIMALS FRESH CHILLED
OR FROZEN OTHER THAN LIVER DEC 1987 YTD

USA -- 45,943 KG

UK EXPORT MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMAL WITH BONE IN 1988

CANADA -- 4,163 KG

PREP OR PRES MEAT OR OFFAL OF BOVINE ANIMALS CUMULATIVE
TO DEC 1988

USA -------- 28,609 KG
CANADA -- 22,044 KG

MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS WITH BONE IN CUMULATIVE TO ANUAL 1989

USA -------- 17,880 KG
MEXICO---- 33,444 KG

BONELESS MEAT OF BOVINE 1989

USA --------111,953 KG
CANADA---1,800 KG
MEXICO --- 1,143,387 KG

EDIBLE OFFAL OF BOVINE ANIMALS 1989

USA -------- 19,980 KG
MEXICO--- 31,244 KG

MORE........

MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS BONELESS 1990

USA 146,443

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf

UK EXPORTS MBM AROUND GLOBE

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11g/tab05.pdf

Oversight of FSIS Recalls

For the past several years we have testified about our continuing work regarding adulterated beef product recalls. In July 2004, a Pennsylvania firm initiated a recall of approximately 170,000 pounds of ground beef patties because of mislabeling. Approximately one-fourth of this product was made, in part, from beef trim from Canada which was not eligible for import to the U.S., following the detection of a Canadian cow with BSE.

http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/FongTestimony.pdf

look on page 44 and up here about the Texas cow also;

Rigid Protocols Reduced the Likelihood BSE Could be Detected

APHIS relied on a single test method, as well as a histological examination of tissue for lesions consistent with BSE, to confirm the presence of BSE even though discrepant test results indicated further testing may be prudent. When IHC test results were interpreted as negative, APHIS concluded the sample tested negative for BSE. Subsequent independent tests initiated by OIG using a different testing method, as well as confirmatory testing by Weybridge, determined that the suspect sample was a positive case of BSE.

When the tissue sample originally arrived at NVSL in November 2004 from the contract lab, NVSL scientists repeated the ELISA screening test and again produced three high positive reactive results. NVSL scientists cut out two sections of the brain sample for IHC testing. One section was used for an experimental procedure that was not part of the confirmatory testing protocol, and the other cut was for normal IHC testing using scrapie for a positive control.47 According to NVSL scientists, the experimental test results were inconclusive but the IHC test was interpreted as negative. The NVSL scientists were concerned with the inconsistencies and conducted

APHIS Declares BSE Sample Negative Despite Conflicting Results

snip.......see full text;

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx. us>

Greetings Carla,still hear a rumor;

Texas single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered the food chain?

and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up forsomething, but they forgot a url for update?I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET...can you confirm???terry

==============================
==============================

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:21 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>

The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all callers to the USDA web site. We have no informationabout the animal being in Texas. CarlaAt 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:>Greetings Carla,>>i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from>TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please?>>thank you,>Terry S. Singeltary Sr.>>
===================
===================

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:20 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx. us> <41A2724F.3000901@wt.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx. us> <41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net>

our computer department was working on a place holder we could postUSDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be announced tonightby NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA announcementwhen we hear something.At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote:>why was the announcement on your TAHC site removed?>>Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy:>November 22: Press Release title here >>star image More BSE information>>>>terry>>Carla Everett wrote:>>>no confirmation on the U.S.' inconclusive test...>>no confirmation on location of animal.>>>>>>==========================
==========================

Oversight of FSIS Recalls

For the past several years we have testified about our continuing work regarding adulterated beef product recalls. In July 2004, a Pennsylvania firm initiated a recall of approximately 170,000 pounds of ground beef patties because of mislabeling. Approximately one-fourth of this product was made, in part, from beef trim from Canada which was not eligible for import to the U.S., following the detection of a Canadian cow with BSE.

http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/FongTestimony.pdf

look on page 44 and up here about the Texas cow also;

Rigid Protocols Reduced the Likelihood BSE Could be Detected

APHIS relied on a single test method, as well as a histological examination of tissue for lesions consistent with BSE, to confirm the presence of BSE even though discrepant test results indicated further testing may be prudent. When IHC test results were interpreted as negative, APHIS concluded the sample tested negative for BSE. Subsequent independent tests initiated by OIG using a different testing method, as well as confirmatory testing by Weybridge, determined that the suspect sample was a positive case of BSE.

When the tissue sample originally arrived at NVSL in November 2004 from the contract lab, NVSL scientists repeated the ELISA screening test and again produced three high positive reactive results. NVSL scientists cut out two sections of the brain sample for IHC testing. One section was used for an experimental procedure that was not part of the confirmatory testing protocol, and the other cut was for normal IHC testing using scrapie for a positive control.47 According to NVSL scientists, the experimental test results were inconclusive but the IHC test was interpreted as negative. The NVSL scientists were concerned with the inconsistencies and conducted

APHIS Declares BSE Sample Negative Despite Conflicting Results

snip.......see full text;

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx. us>

Greetings Carla,still hear a rumor;

Texas single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered the food chain?

and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up forsomething, but they forgot a url for update?I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET...can you confirm???terry

==============================
==============================

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:21 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>

The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all callers to the USDA web site. We have no informationabout the animal being in Texas. CarlaAt 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:>Greetings Carla,>>i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from>TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please?>>thank you,>Terry S. Singeltary Sr.>>
===================
===================

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:20 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx. us> <41A2724F.3000901@wt.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx. us> <41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net>

our computer department was working on a place holder we could postUSDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be announced tonightby NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA announcementwhen we hear something.At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote:>why was the announcement on your TAHC site removed?>>Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy:>November 22: Press Release title here >>star image More BSE information>>>>terry>>Carla Everett wrote:>>>no confirmation on the U.S.' inconclusive test...>>no confirmation on location of animal.>>>>>>==========================
==========================

OH SHIT< bingo, bet this is what you are seeking mike;

Report on Food & Drug Administration Dallas District Investigation of
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Event in Texas 2005

Executive Summary:

On June 24, 2005, USDA informed FDA that a cow in Texas tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Information provided by APHIS was that the BSE positive cow was born and raised in a herd in Texas and was approximately 12 years old. The animal was sampled for BSE at a pet food plant in Texas on November 15, 2004, as part of USDA’s enhanced surveillance program. The animal was disposed of by incineration and did not enter the human food or animal feed chains. Although the positive animal posed no risk to the animal feed supply, FDA, APHIS, the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), and the Texas Feed and Fertilizer Control Service (TFFCS) conducted a feed investigation with two main objectives. The first objective was to identify all protein sources in the animal’s feed history that could potentially have been the source of the BSE agent. The second objective was to verify that cattle leaving the herd after 1997 that were identified by USDA/APHIS as animals of concern (e.g. progeny and feed cohorts), were rendered at facilities in compliance with the regulation (21 CFR 589.2000) that prohibits most mammalian protein in feed for ruminants that became effective August 4, 1997 (herein called BSE/Ruminant Feed rule).

The feed history investigation identified 21 feed products that had been used on the farm since 1990. These feed products were purchased from three retail feed stores and had been manufactured at nine different feed mills. The investigators visited these establishments to collect information on formulations, shipping invoices, and use of ruminant meat and bone meal (MBM) on the premises both pre-1997 feed ban and post-1997 feed ban. This investigation found no feed products used on the farm since 1997 that had been formulated to contain prohibited mammalian protein.

The investigation identified one feed which contained an animal protein source that could not be identified. The investigation also found one feed mill that supplied feed to the farm that had used ruminant MBM in feed formulations for non-ruminant species after the BSE/Ruminant Feed rule went into effect, which is permitted under the rule, and that several feed mills had used ruminant MBM in feeds prior to the feed ban. Although the investigation did not identify a specific feed source as the likely cause of this animal’s infection, it is probable that the most likely route of exposure for this animal was consumption of an animal feed containing mammalian protein prior to the implementation of the BSE/Ruminant Feed rule in 1997.

The investigation into the disposition of herd mates from this farm involved visits to nine slaughter plants and eight rendering plants. The investigation found that all rendering plants were operating in compliance with the BSE/ruminant feed ban regulation. A review of the inspection history of each of these rendering firms found no violations.

Background of Investigation:

When notified on June 24, 2005, FDA Headquarters and Dallas District management officials immediately began making contacts with their Federal, State and Local counterparts to plan for and initiate follow-up investigational activities to determine the feed history in this herd and to assure the safety of the animal feed supply by evaluating current and historic compliance with the BSE/ruminant feed ban rule.

APHIS established a joint Incident Command Post and FDA Dallas District staffed this post full time with a Supervisory Investigator charged with coordinating activities between FDA, APHIS, TAHC and TFFCS. Coordination conference calls were set up with all Federal and State agencies involved in the investigation to keep everyone apprised of investigational developments.

Animal Tracing Activities and Renderer Follow-up Inspections:

One of APHIS’ primary objectives was to identify and trace the animals of interest (animals of interest would include any animals which could have been potential birth cohorts or feed cohorts of the index animal, or potential offspring of the index animal within the two years prior to the positive diagnosis) from the index herd. This objective included the identification of points of sale and ultimately the actual slaughter facilities for animals of interest that left the farm. As the trace information was developed, APHIS shared this information with FDA. Further information on animal of interest identification and tracing can be found in the USDA Texas BSE Final Epidemiology report.

APHIS identified nine slaughter establishments receiving these animals of interest. Eight of the slaughter establishments were located in the State of Texas and one was located in the State of Georgia. Dallas District Investigators notified USDA/FSIS of our plans to visit each slaughter establishment to identify rendering facilities receiving materials from these slaughter establishments during the timeframe they received animals of interest. Dallas District also issued an assignment to Atlanta District to visit and inspect the one slaughter/renderer establishment located in the State of Georgia.

Eight renderers and one protein source broker were identified as receiving materials from these slaughter establishments. Each rendering facility identified was inspected for current compliance with the mammalian protein feed ban rule. Each firm’s operations during the period of time of receipt of these animals post 1997 were evaluated from a historical viewpoint and no evidence of noncompliance was detected.

In all, FDA visited nine slaughter facilities, eight rendering facilities and one broker of these materials. All facilities inspected were found to be in compliance with the BSE/ruminant feed ban rule

Feed Investigation:

As information was learned about the index herd, FDA Investigators working with TAHC officials conducted multiple interviews with the producer of the animal regarding possible feeds, feed sources, animal husbandry practices, and other events which may have changed normal feeding practices over the course of the index animal’s life in the herd and any other information which may have been helpful in identifying the possible sources of feed for this animal and herd. FDA corroborated this information through interviews at the retail feed supply stores where the producer purchased feeds.

Follow-up at these retail feed supply stores identified 21 possible feed products the producer may have used during the history of the herd. Fifteen purchased feed products were identified, along with hay, native grass, rice straw, soybean meal, milk replacer/colostrum and bagged corn. These products were identified as originating from nine different manufacturers. Each of these manufacturers was inspected by FDA Dallas District and TFFCS Investigators.

Feed manufacturers were located throughout the State of Texas. An assignment was also issued to another FDA District to visit a Corporate Headquarters facility in an effort to review archived feed formulations and labels. During each of these inspections, the firm’s current compliance with the BSE/ruminant feed ban rule was evaluated and attempts were made to determine the protein sources used in feeds on the index farm. Many of the feeds investigated were manufactured and used prior to the implementation of the BSE/ruminant feed ban rule in 1997. Feed products of particular interest included any which may have contained a protein source and the primary focus was on identifying any possible mammalian protein source material in those feed products. We found that ruminant feeds that had contained mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM) prior to the BSE/ruminant feed ban rule had been discontinued or reformulated upon the implementation of these rules. There is no regulatory requirement for a feed mill to archive formulations for that length of time, so in those instances where an actual formulation could not be obtained, experienced employees of the firms were interviewed and their recollections recorded.

Of all the feeds in use by the producer since 1997, none were discovered to have contained prohibited material (mammalian protein). Since the age of the index animal was determined to be approximately 12 years, investigating and reconstructing a feed history over such a long period of time is challenging. This ranch is a beef cow-calf operation and minimal feed records were maintained. Due to the nature of this investigation, it is difficult to determine what feeds were in use at specific times and what the formulation of those feeds were at the time they were fed. A feed history was developed through interviews with the producer and other farm personnel since they did not maintain any feed history documentation. Interviews with personnel at retail establishments disclosed incomplete records and cash sales that did not always identify the purchaser. Dallas District investigated any and all feed ingredients that were identified as being fed or potentially fed over the course of the last 15 years of this herd’s operation. Feeds discovered during this investigation with potential mammalian protein sources are as below:

One feed, used prior to 1996, before the implementation of the feed ban, was suspected to contain mammalian meat and bone meal, but this could not be confirmed as no formulation records were available.

The producer recalled using a particular feed sporadically during the 1980’s and 1990’s, however, he could not remember the name or manufacturer of the feed and had no records identifying the product. It is not known whether this feed contained an animal protein source. Attempts to identify this feed through interviews with retail sources were unsuccessful.

The producer identified one feed product that has been used since the year 2000 which contains fish meal as a protein source. Further investigation revealed that this product had contained mammalian meat and bone meal prior to 1997, but that it had been reformulated at that time using fish meal to replace the MBM.

A tabular representation of the feed inspection follow-up activities is presented below:

Feed
Dates of Use
Protein Source
Current BSE Inspection
BSE Compliance History

Feed #1 - Range Meal
1980’s - 2000
Unknown - Unable to determine actual manufacturer, no records available from producer
N/A
N/A

Feed #2 - High Protein Starter Feed
2001 to present
Feather meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #3 - High Protein Starter Feed
~1995 - 2001
Feather meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #4 - Cottonseed cake
Prior to 1990
Cottonseed meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #5 - Cottonseed cake
Early 1980’s - 1990’s
Cottonseed meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #6 - Limiter
2001 to present
Feather meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #7 - Creep pellets
Prior to 1970
Likely feather meal - no formulation could be obtained
N/A
N/A

Feed #8 - Lick tub
Since 2000
MBM prior to 1997 Fish Meal since 1997
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #9 - Cottonseed meal
Continuously
Cottonseed meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #10 - Range Cubes
Continuously since 1990
Feather meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant[1]

Feed #11 - Sulfur Salt Block
Continuously
Minerals; calcium - all non-animal derived
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #12 - Lick tub
Continuously since 1995
Feather meal
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #13 - Beef Supplement
Prior to 1996
Prior to 1997, suspect MBM - Not able to confirm, no formulation available
BSE Compliant
Same manufacturer as Feed #10[1]

Feed #14 - Mineralized Salt
Continuously since 1998
Minerals; calcium - all non-animal derived
BSE Compliant
BSE Compliant

Feed #15 - Soybean meal
Since 2000, sparingly
Soybean meal
N/A
N/A

Feed #16 - Corn
Continuously
Corn
N/A
N/A

Feed #17 - Rice straw
1996, during dry year
Rice straw
N/A
N/A

Feed #18 - Hay
Continuously
Hay
N/A
N/A

Feed #19 - Milk Replacer
Since 2000, Infrequent use
Dehydrated colostrums, whey
N/A
N/A

Feed #20 - Grass
Continuously
Native grass
N/A
N/A

Feed #21 - Soybean meal
Since 2000, sparingly
Soybean meal
N/A
N/A

[1] Dallas District previously documented one incident of the accidental addition of mammalian protein to a feed that was to be used for cattle at this facility. This incident was isolated to the manufacture of one lot of a custom cattle feed. A cross contamination error resulted in mammalian meat and bone meal being accidentally included in a feed. The error was detected soon after production. The firm acted swiftly in recalling the product and purchasing the animals that had consumed the feed. No products entered the human food or ruminant feed chain.

Dallas District Compliance History with BSE Feed Ban Rules:

Prior to 1997, feed manufacturers were not required to differentiate between protein sources used in ruminant and non-ruminant feeds. For a period of time following the implementation of the BSE/ruminant feed ban rule, some feed manufacturers continued to use both prohibited material and non-prohibited material within the same facility, employing separation and cleanout procedures to minimize cross-contamination. Although the regulations allow this practice, the potential for cross-contamination of ruminant feeds is greater. Most feed mills have found this practice to be difficult and have abandoned this practice.

Since the implementation of the BSE/ruminant feed ban rule in 1997, Dallas District and its State partners have inspected every known or registered feed manufacturer located in the states of Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Further, every rendering operation and feed manufacturer actually processing with prohibited materials has been inspected annually. The compliance rate of the industry has been excellent.

Results:

In total FDA, along with TFFCS, conducted 33 inspections, investigations and interviews of the producer, retail feed establishments, feed manufacturers, corporate headquarters, slaughter facilities, renderers and a protein source broker. The FDA Dallas District follow-up to this incident resulted in the coordination of efforts of multiple Federal and State agencies. This report is the physical output of many hours of research, planning and coordination. All of the inspections conducted confirmed the feed manufacturers and rendering operations to be in compliance with the current BSE/ruminant feed ban rule.

Dallas District conducts annual inspections of all feed mills and rendering facilities who handle, use or produce PM for feed use. Inspections performed since the initiation of the BSE/ruminant feed ban rules in 1997 have confirmed a high degree of industry wide compliance with these important safeguards. The district also routinely coordinates and shares information regarding feed inspections with the TFFCS who are also responsible for the evaluating feed ban compliance in the state of Texas.

Food and Drug Administration
August 30, 2005
Minor edit September 8, 2005

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/texasfeedrpt.htm

ALSO, in TEXAS, cattle on feed for decades, fda says 5.5 grams ruminant protein, if tainted with TSE, is not enough to kill a cow. actually, it's enough to kill 100+ cows ;-)

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html

ALSO, in TEXAS, home of the SSS policy, live an in color;

“Anthrax is under-reported, because many ranchers in this area automatically dispose

of carcasses and vaccinate livestock when they find dead animals that are bloated or

bloody--common signs of the disease,” said Dr. Fancher. “Anthrax is a reportable

disease, however, and it’s important to know when an outbreak occurs, so other

ranchers can be notified to vaccinate.

http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2005/2005Jul_Anthrax_Confirmed_in_SuttonCty.pdf

TSS

THE END

USDA CONFIRMS BSE Tests on U.S. Cows Found Identical to BASE

USDA CONFIRMS BSE Tests on U.S. Cows Found Identical to Atypical Cases in France
Date: June 6, 2006 at 7:22 am PST
BSE Tests on U.S. Cows Found Identical to Atypical Cases in France 06/05/06 07:55

OMAHA (DTN) -- A USDA official confirmed the positive BSE tests in two U.S.-born cattle were indeed an "atypical" type of the disease.

A USDA spokesman acknowledged Friday positive BSE tests from two domestic-born cattle were from a rare strain of the disease found in a small number of European cases.

BSE, scientifically known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy and commonly known as mad cow disease, is a degenerative, fatal disease affecting the central nervous system of adult cattle.

USDA officials have declined in the past to provide such details, but released information Friday after a French researcher revealed earlier this week that the cases in Texas last year and Alabama last spring were identical to "atypical" cases of BSE found in France.

Scientists from around the world are trying to quantify the significance of these rare cases. They also want to know if these cases may be sporadic.

In an e-mail, a USDA spokesman said the cases raise "many unanswered questions about these unusual findings, and additional research is needed to help characterize the significance -- or lack of significance -- of any of these findings."

The USDA spokesperson said nothing in the test results of the two cattle justifies any changes in surveillance, disease control or public-health measures already being taken in the U.S.

http://www.news.farmpage.com/index.cfm?show=4&id=16987

Cattle disease might be unknown strain of BSE
05/06/2006 09:00:00
Farmers Weekly
Scientists across Europe and the United States are following the emergence of a new Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) in cattle that could be a new strain of BSE.

Speaking last weekend at an international conference on prion diseases in domestic livestock (such as BSE in cows and scrapie in sheep and goats) scientists from France and Italy described how the disease had been detected in a small number of cattle ranging from five to 15 years old.

The strain differs from BSE in that it has a longer incubation time and is consequently being found in older cattle.

The new strain also demonstrates different characteristics from BSE in laboratory tests and was originally detected through active surveillance of live animals rather than during inspection of a suspect fallen animal.

Marion Simmons of the Veterinary Laboratory Agency at Weybridge urged caution saying there are not yet sufficient supporting data to suggest that the disease is a new strain of BSE.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2006/06/05/95055/Cattle+disease+might+be+unknown+strain+of+BSE.html

BASE in cattle in Italy of Identification of a second bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy: Molecular similarities with

sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0305777101v1

Singeltary et al

http://www.microbes.info/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=13

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

I thought some might be interested in this ;

Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse

Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock

Project Number: 3625-32000-073-07
Project Type: Specific C/A

Start Date: Sep 15, 2004
End Date: Sep 14, 2007

Objective:
The objective of this cooperative research project with Dr. Maria Caramelli
from the Italian BSE Reference Laboratory in Turin, Italy, is to conduct
comparative studies with the U.S. bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
isolate and the atypical BSE isolates identified in Italy. The studies will
cover the following areas: 1. Evaluation of present diagnostics tools used
in the U.S. for the detection of atypical BSE cases. 2. Molecular comparison
of the U.S. BSE isolate and other typical BSE isolates with atypical BSE
cases. 3. Studies on transmissibility and tissue distribution of atypical
BSE isolates in cattle and other species.

Approach:
This project will be done as a Specific Cooperative Agreement with the
Italian BSE Reference Laboratory, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del
Piemonte, in Turin, Italy. It is essential for the U.S. BSE surveillance
program to analyze the effectiveness of the U.S diagnostic tools for
detection of atypical cases of BSE. Molecular comparisons of the U.S. BSE
isolate with atypical BSE isolates will provide further characterization of
the U.S. BSE isolate. Transmission studies are already underway using brain
homogenates from atypical BSE cases into mice, cattle and sheep. It will be
critical to see whether the atypical BSE isolates behave similarly to
typical BSE isolates in terms of transmissibility and disease pathogenesis.
If transmission occurs, tissue distribution comparisons will be made between
cattle infected with the atypical BSE isolate and the U.S. BSE isolate.
Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations regarding
specific risk material (SRM) removal.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=408490

Research Project: Study of Atypical Bse

Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock

2005 Annual Report

This report serves to document research conducted under a specific
cooperative agreement between ARS and the Italian Reference Centre for
Animal TSE (CEA) at the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale, Turin, Italy.
Additional details of research can be found in then report for the parent
project 3625-32000-073-00D, Transmission, Differentiation, and Pathobiology
of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies. The aim of the cooperative
research project conducted by the CEA and ARS is to compare the U.S. bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) isolate and the bovine amyloidotic
spongiform encephalopathy isolates (BASE) identified in Italy. The first
objective was to determine whether diagnostic methods routinely used by USDA
are able to identify the Italian BASE cases. For this purpose, CEA received
the immunohistochemistry (IHC) protocol developed by APHIS-USDA. The IHC
protocol was reproduced and standardized in the CEA laboratory and will be
applied to the Italian BSE and BASE cases. Furthermore, fixed brainstem
sections and frozen brainstem material from Italian BSE and BASE cases will
be sent to ARS for analysis using USDA IHC and Western blot (WB) methods.
These studies will enable us to determine whether the present diagnostic
tools (IHC and WB) employed at the USDA will be able to detect the Italian
BASE cases and also enable us to compare Italian BSE and BASE with the U.S.
BSE cases.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=408490&showpa
rs=true&fy=2005

Research Project: Transmission, Differentiation, and Pathobiology of
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies

Location: Virus and Prion Diseases of Livestock

Title: Where We've Been and Where We're Going with Bse Testing in the United
States

Authors
item Hall, Mark - NVSL-APHIS-USDA
item Richt, Juergen
item Davis, Arthur - NVSL-APHIS-USDA
item Levings, Randall - NVSL-APHIS-USDA

Submitted to: American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians
Publication Type: Abstract
Publication Acceptance Date: September 1, 2005
Publication Date: November 3, 2005
Citation: Hall, M.S., Richt, J.A., Davis, A.J., Levings, R.L. 2005. Where
We've Been and Where We're Going with Bse Testing in the United States
[abstract]. 48th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Veterinary
Laboratory Diagnosticians. P. 20.

Technical Abstract: A review of the laboratory aspects of the United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
Surveillance Program from its beginning to the present day will be provided.
Validated diagnostic tests for BSE require brain tissue. There are no ante
mortem (blood/serum) tests for BSE available at present. From a historical
perspective, diagnostic tests for BSE continue to evolve. The original
diagnostic test method was histopathology in which sections of brain were
examined under a microscope, and the classical vacuoles and spongiform
change in specific areas of the brain would allow a diagnosis to be made.
This method was accurate but only allowed a diagnosis to be made relatively
late in the course of the disease. In the mid-1990s, immunohistochemistry
(IHC) and Western blotting were developed which allow the detection of the
abnormal form of the prion protein (PrPSc) and a diagnosis could be made
prior to the development of spongiform changes and clinical signs. In the
past decade, so-called "rapid tests" have been introduced commercially for
BSE. Five commercial tests are currently licensed/permitted in the United
States for BSE. These licensed tests include the Prionics Western blot,
Prionics ELISA, Enfer/Abbott ELISA, IDEXX ELISA, and the BioRad ELISA. This
presentation will discuss various attributes of the validated test methods
available today. Both IHC and Western blot are considered confirmatory tests
for BSE by the World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE). IHC provides for a
specific immunological detection of PrPSc and enables the specific
anatomical location to be determined. Western blot provides both
immunological detection of PrPSc as well as specific molecular weight
characterizations; certain Western blot procedures can be extremely
sensitive due to various concentration procedures before analysis of the
sample. The OIE recommended Western blot and IHC methods for confirmatory
diagnosis of BSE used by USDA and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in
Weybridge, England, will be discussed. The overall enhanced testing plan
that has been used for the past 18 months will be described including
changes that have occurred during this time. The USDA's BSE enhanced
surveillance plan has been a very successful national surveillance testing
program that has been a shared effort between state veterinary diagnostic
laboratories as part of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network and
the National Veterinary Services Laboratories.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=18
3829

NEW STRAIN OF TSE USA CATTLE OR JUST INCOMPETENCE IN TESTING???

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf

Greetings again,

I was going over the data from the 1st documented BSE/TSE cow
in the USA and find it disturbing USDA thought it important enough
to use WB to verify there immunohistochemistry test then ;

TSEs Touch Off
ARS Research

A year ago this month, a group of ARS
scientists and technicians gave up their Christmas time off and even
delayed family vacations to provide characterization of the first case
of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-commonly called mad cow
disease-to be found in the United States.

On December 23, 2003, a Canadian cow shipped to slaughter from a farm in
Mabton, Washington, had come up presumptively positive for BSE in
testing by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
which has diagnostic responsibility and regulatory oversight for BSE
issues. APHIS had already used the "gold standard" diagnostic
immunohistochemistry test, which was originally developed by ARS. But
for the first U.S. case of BSE, APHIS wanted additional scientific
information that could be provided by the Western blot test.

So APHIS put in a high-priority call to veterinary medical officer
Juergen Richt and his colleagues at the Virus and Prion Diseases of
Livestock Laboratory, which is part of ARS's National Animal Disease
Center (NADC) in Ames, Iowa.

"We had experience with the Western blot test and we had all the
reagents on hand," explains Richt. "So we put our holiday plans on hold
and got everything ready so that APHIS would have verification of the
results from the immunohistochemistry test." ........... snip

full text;

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/dec04/tse1204.htm
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/dec04/

HOWEVER, on the 2nd suspect Texas mad cow, not the stumbling and staggering
one they refused to test at all here ;

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). ...

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html

BUT, i am speaking of the suspect Texas mad cow where tissue samples sat on
the shelf for 7+ months and then it took an act of Congress, thanks to the
Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG, and an end around Johanns, Dehaven et al
to get those samples to Weybridge for confirmation, where it was finally
confirmed ;

The animal was selected for testing because, as a non-ambulatory animal, it
was considered to be at higher risk for BSE. An initial screening test on
the animal in November 2004 was inconclusive, triggering USDA to conduct the
internationally accepted confirmatory IHC tests. Those test results were
negative. Earlier this month, USDA's Office of the Inspector General
recommended further testing of the seven-month-old sample using another
internationally recognized confirmatory test, the Western blot. Unlike the
IHC, the Western blot was reactive, prompting USDA to send samples from the
animal to the Weybridge laboratory for further analysis. ...

Last Modified: 06/24/2005

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retriev
econtent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?
PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F06%2F0232.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_p
arentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

EVEN more disturbing is the fact that Dr. Detwiler, former top TSE expert at
USDA, tried to tell this Administration this in 2003, and they refused to
listen, this just before she left USDA ;

USDA 2003

We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.

snip.............

Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.

Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.

snip...

FULL TEXT;

Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE

Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado
====================================================

Taking a Quality Sample

Too Little Tissue Submitted Too Little Tissue Submitted

NOTE: The samples in these photos are suitable for ELISA testing and if
negative by ELISA there would not be a problem, but if the results were
inconclusive then it would be difficult to process for IHC and additional
testing.

August 24, 2004 Taking a Quality Sample: E4

snip...end

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/BSE/Manual/appendixe.pdf

Getting a Sample of Sufficient Quality
Unless the sample is of sufficient quality, it will be unusable and
not count towards the survey. Please see Appendix E for
guidance on collecting a quality sample. If the sample is not of
sufficient quality, STOP: DO NOT TAKE THE SAMPLE. This
does NOT apply to samples taken from:

. animals that are highly suspicious for BSE or that
involve an FAD investigation

. animals that were condemned in an antemortem
inspection BSE sampling using a spoon

Step 1

. Place head upright

- On head rack or barrel
- On table edge
- On the ground facing down if no other option

snip...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/BSE/procedure_manual.pdf

NOW, if we go back further, is this really any surprise ;

>> Differences in tissue distribution could require new regulations
>> regarding specific risk material (SRM) removal.

snip...end

full text ;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf

3.57 The experiment which might have determined whether BSE and scrapie were
caused by the same agent (ie, the feeding of natural scrapie to cattle) was
never undertaken in the UK. It was, however, performed in the USA in 1979,
when it was shown that cattle inoculated with the scrapie agent endemic in
the flock of Suffolk sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture in
Mission, Texas, developed a TSE quite unlike BSE. 32 The findings of the
initial transmission, though not of the clinical or neurohistological
examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr Watson, Director of the
CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the project leaders in the
Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States Department of
Agriculture. 33 The results were not published at this point, since the
attempted transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been
inconclusive. The results of the clinical and histological differences
between scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar
studies in which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula
derived from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent,
though pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of
brain lesions characteristic of BSE.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820543

The findings of the initial transmission, though not of the clinical or
neurohistological examination, were communicated in October 1988 to Dr
Watson, Director of the CVL, following a visit by Dr Wrathall, one of the
project leaders in the Pathology Department of the CVL, to the United States
Department of Agriculture. 33

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1988/10/00001001.pdf

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820546

The results were not published at this point, since the attempted
transmission to mice from the experimental cow brain had been inconclusive.
The results of the clinical and histological differences between
scrapie-affected sheep and cattle were published in 1995. Similar studies in
which cattle were inoculated intracerebrally with scrapie inocula derived
from a number of scrapie-affected sheep of different breeds and from
different States, were carried out at the US National Animal Disease Centre.
34 The
results, published in 1994, showed that this source of scrapie agent, though
pathogenic for cattle, did not produce the same clinical signs of brain
lesions characteristic of BSE.

3.58 There are several possible reasons why the experiment was not performed
in the UK. It had been recommended by Sir Richard Southwood (Chairman of the
Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) in his letter to the
Permanent Secretary of MAFF, Mr (now Sir) Derek Andrews, on 21 June 1988, 35
though it was not specifically recommended in the Working Party Report or
indeed in the Tyrrell Committee Report (details of the Southwood Working
Party and the Tyrell Committee can be found in vol. 4: The Southwood Working
Party, 1988-89 and vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood respectively). The
direct inoculation of scrapie into calves was given low priority, because of
its high cost and because it was known that it had already taken place in
the USA. 36 It was also felt that the results of such an experiment would be
hard to interpret. While a negative result would be informative, a positive
result would need to demonstrate that when scrapie was transmitted to
cattle, the disease which developed in cattle was the same as BSE. 37 Given
the large number of strains of scrapie and the possibility that BSE was one
of them, it would be necessary to transmit every scrapie strain to cattle
separately, to test the hypothesis properly. Such an experiment would be
expensive. Secondly, as measures to control the epidemic took hold, the need
for the experiment from the policy viewpoint was not considered so urgent.
It was felt that the results would be mainly of academic interest. 38

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm#820550

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume2/chaptea3.htm

UKBSEnvCJD only theory Singeltary et al 2006

http://www.microbes.info/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=13

http://www.microbes.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=306

CJD WATCH

http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm

CJD WATCH MESSAGE BOARD

http://disc.server.com/Indices/167318.html

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:33 PM
Subject: BSE, BOVINE - USA: ATYPICAL STRAIN

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################

BSE, BOVINE - USA: ATYPICAL STRAIN
**********************************
A ProMED-mail post

ProMED-mail, a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases

Date: 31 May 2006
From: Terry S. Singletary and Mary Marshall

Source: Rapid City Journal [edited]

The 2 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy found in U.S. cattle
over the past year came from a rare strain of BSE found largely in
Europe that scientists are only beginning to identify, according to
research by a French scientist.

Researchers in France and Italy who presented their work at an
international conference in London reported 2 rare strains of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy that are harder to detect and affect mainly
older cattle.

Thierry Baron of the French Food Safety Agency presented research
indicating that a 12-year-old Texas cow testing positive for BSE in
June 2005, and the 10-year-old Alabama cow that tested positive in
March [2006?], showed identical testing patterns to a small number of
BSE cases in France, Sweden and Poland.

Animal scientists are calling such strains "atypical" BSE, which is
different from the "typical" BSE caused by cattle eating feed with
ruminant offal contaminated with a BSE protein.

They don't know whether the atypical strains are caused by something
else or simply appear spontaneously in older, susceptible cattle.

Art Davis, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientist for the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) at the National
Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, said in his
presentation Sunday at the London conference that the Texas and
Alabama test results showed completely different prion patterns than
the Washington state case discovered in December 2003.

"The classical lesions were not there," Davis said of the cases. The
Washington state cow originated in Alberta, Canada, near where
several other BSE cases have been found.

The "typical" BSE strain caused a mad cow disease epidemic in Great
Britain beginning in the mid-1980s that killed 184 000 cattle and
more than 100 people who contracted a human form of the disease
caused by eating contaminated beef products.

The scientific evidence shows that in almost all cattle cases, the
fatal neurological disorder was contracted through contaminated meat
and bone meal fed to the cow, typically at a young age.

However, scientists finding atypical cases of BSE are beginning to
question if there has been a change in the abnormal protein that
causes BSE or if cattle might be susceptible to a sporadic BSE
affecting older cattle.

Danny Matthews, head of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies at
England's Veterinary Laboratories Agency, said recent research on
atypical cases of BSE raises questions over whether older cattle can
sporadically get the disease or if there are more strains of BSE than
previously understood. Scientists might also be facing something new,
such as "son of BSE," he said.

"We don't fully understand what atypical BSE means," Matthews said.
"Is it spontaneous or another source causing it? Time will tell."

Although the test patterns in the U.S. cases and atypical cases in
Europe closely matched, Baron said there were no known links among
any of the positive animals. The French Food Safety Agency sent a
researcher to the United States to study the positive Texas case and
compare its results to known cases in France that did not match the
typical BSE positive tests.

"You could place them side-by-side and not tell the difference," Baron said.

Baron also raised the prospect that the disease could be sporadic in
at least a small number of older cattle. He said, however, such a
conclusion would be hard to determine because of the small number of
cattle with this atypical strain globally.

Dr. Sam Holland, South Dakota's state veterinarian, said there are
many strains of BSE and varying degrees of infectiousness of the
agent.

"What if the scenario is there is an atypical prion out there that is
much less infective, has a longer incubation period and has not been
recognized as part of the Great Britain BSE experience identified in
1985 and '86?" Holland said. "There could be others out there that we
haven't recognized yet."

He said it is possible the atypical strains are not caused by
contaminated feed and that it still makes sense to continue the ban
on ruminant offal in cattle feed to prevent the spread of typical BSE
and eventually to eliminate that disease.

"Based on what we know about BSE, it makes good sense to -- number
one -- keep some surveillance in place; number 2, watch what we
import and restrict shipments and movements from places that have had
those syndromes; and, number 3, with what we know about BSE, it seems
to be very prudent to keep our ruminant offal ban in place," Holland
said.

"At least for typical BSE's, it seems to be very effective. It's
probably reasonable to continue the ruminant offal ban even after the
last typical BSE case has been eliminated."

Editor's note: DTN, a private company based in Omaha, Neb., provides
information to agriculture, energy trading markets and other
weather-sensitive industries. The Rapid City Journal received a copy
of DTN's story and expanded on it.

[Byline: Chris Clayton]

--
Terry S. Singletary
and
Mary Marshall

[An atypical form has been found in sheep with scrapie. Other
countries have indicated an atypical form of BSE. It seems logical
that the US would have an a atypical form as well. The case might
even be made that new variant CJD is an atypical form of CJD. Clearly
there is more to the TSE diseases than we fully comprehend. - Mod.TG]

[see also:
2005
----
Scrapie, atypical, ovine - Falkland Islands 20051120.3371
2004
----
Scrapie, atypical, sheep - UK and Ireland 20041210.3274
Scrapie, atypical, sheep - UK (02) 20040409.0965
Scrapie, atypical, sheep - UK20040408.0952
BSE, atypical - France: OIE 20040201.0391
Scrapie, atypical, sheep - France: OIE 20040201.0390
BSE - France: distinct molecular phenotypes 20040107.0076
2003
----
Scrapie - Norway: new phenotype 20031117.2857
BSE - Japan (08): 9th case, lab findings 20031115.2838
BSE, atypical case - Italy: OIE 20031022.2649
BSE - Italy: atypical, suspected 20031012.2576
BSE - Japan (06): atypical 20031009.2547
BSE - Japan (05): atypical 20031008.2526
BSE - Japan (04): atypical 20031007.2511
2002
----
BSE? Sheep - USA (Vermont) 20020412.3937
2000
----
BSE? sheep - USA (Vermont) (06) 20000724.1223
BSE? sheep - USA (Vermont) 20000717.1184
1996
----
CJD sporadic vs variant differences 19960526.0990]
...............tg/pg/lm

*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at

************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
####################

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################

OIG REPORT ON USDA AND HOW NOT TO FIND BSE

USDA 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND HOW NOT TO FIND BSE CASES (OFFICIAL DRAFT OIG REPORT)

snip...

CATTLE With CNS Symptoms Were NOT Always Tested

snip...

Between FYs 2002 and 2004, FSIS condemned 680 cattle of all ages due to CNS symptoms. About 357 of these could be classified as adult. We could validate that ONLY 162 were tested for BSE (per APHIS records. ...

snip...

WE interviewed officials at five laboratories that test for rabies. Those officials CONFIRMED THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT RABIES-NEGATIVE SAMPLES TO APHIS FOR BSE TESTING. A South Dakota laboratory official said they were not aware they could submit rabies-negative samples to APHIS for BSE testing. A laboratory official in another State said all rabies-negative cases were not submitted to APHIS because BSE was ''NOT ON THEIR RADAR SCREEN." Officials from New York, Wisconsin, TEXAS, and Iowa advised they would NOT submit samples from animals they consider too young. Four of the five States contacted defined this age as 24 months; Wisconsin defined it as 30 months. TEXAS officials also advised that they do not always have sufficient tissue remaining to submit a BSE sample. ...

snip...

FULL TEXT 54 PAGES OF HOW NOT TO FIND BSE IN USA ;

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_july_13_ig_rep.pdf

SEE MORE BSe from APHIS ;

TSE Disease Surveillance

Data from APHIS animal disease surveillance programs can be used to
detect occurrences of disease, provide information for better policy
decisions, and better understand the diseases. Most surveillance
programs are based on data from live-animal tests; however, since such
tests are generally unavailable for TSE's, in this area APHIS generally
relies on observation of animals exhibiting signs of TSE's and tissue
samples from dead animals. Since 1990, animals targeted for BSE
surveillance by APHIS include cattle exhibiting signs of neurological
disease in the field (i.e., prior to being brought to slaughter),
cattle condemned at slaughter for neurologic reasons, rabies-negative
cattle submitted to public health laboratories,\3\ neurologic cases
submitted to veterinary diagnostic laboratories and teaching hospitals,
nonambulatory cattle (``downer cattle'') over 24 months of age at
slaughter, and adult cattle dying from unknown causes on farms. The
primary reason we target downer animals is that surveillance data from
European countries in which BSE has been detected indicate that downer
cattle have a greater incidence of BSE.\4\ If BSE enters the United
States, downer cattle testing programs are likely to first reveal it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SNIP...

Summary of Issues Open for Comment

[sbull] What is the preferred approach and associated costs to
affected parties for controlling risks associated with disposal of
nonambulatory and dead livestock?
[sbull] Are there any cross-cutting issues between safe disposal of
specified risk materials such as brain and spinal cord and safe
disposal options for downer and on-farm dead animals?
[sbull] Are there practical ways to cull higher-risk downer cattle,
e.g. cattle that may have a non-obvious CNS condition, before they are
sent to slaughter? How should risk factors such as age, physical
condition, and the source and type of cattle be considered when sending
downer cattle to slaughter? What would such culling cost affected
parties?
[sbull] Since APHIS currently relies on collecting samples from
downer animals, at slaughter and other locations, as a key part of BSE
surveillance, how could we continue to obtain samples for testing from
downer cattle if they are not sent to slaughter?
[sbull] What carcass disposal methods are safe, fast, complete, and
environmentally acceptable? What combination of regulatory
requirements, incentives, and cooperative relationships with production
and disposal industries would result in sustainable procedures for the
safe disposal of dead stock, and what are the costs associated with
such solutions?
[sbull] Can rendering be an effective means for safely disposing of
dead stock in a manner that minimizes risks of spreading BSE and other
animal diseases? Under what conditions? What are the associated
technical, economic, regional, environmental, and practical business
issues?
[sbull] What are equitable ways to share the costs of dead stock
disposal, to concentrate and increase economic opportunities and social
benefits that can be associated with responsible dead stock disposal?
[sbull] What businesses, levels of government, or other parties
should be involved in dead stock disposal? Should such programs be
organized on the

[[Page 2711]]

county or State level, a regional level, or a national level, and what
role should the Federal Government play?
[sbull] Is there a need to particularly address disposal of sheep
and goats with regard to scrapie, and disposal of captive elk and deer
with regard to CWD? What dead stock disposal issues are common to all
species, and what issues are of particular importance to different
types of producers?

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of January 2003.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 03-1210 Filed 1-17-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-1210.htm

TSS

2012 atypical L-type BASE BSE confirmed in California

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/08/final-feed-investigation-summary.html

SUMMARY REPORT CALIFORNIA BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY CASE INVESTIGATION JULY 2012

Summary Report BSE 2012

Executive Summary

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/08/summary-report-california-bovine.html

Saturday, October 6, 2012

TRANSMISSION, DIFFERENTIATION, AND PATHOBIOLOGY OF TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES 2011 Annual Report

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/10/transmission-differentiation-and.html

Saturday, October 6, 2012

TRANSMISSION, DIFFERENTIATION, AND PATHOBIOLOGY OF TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES 2011 Annual Report

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/10/transmission-differentiation-and.html

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Transmission of New Bovine Prion to Mice, Atypical Scrapie, BSE, and Sporadic CJD, November-December 2012 update

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/11/transmission-of-new-bovine-prion-to.html

kind regards,
terry

layperson

USDA inc. Goals Eliminating ALL remaining BSE trade barriers $

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

APHIS USDA Administrator Message to Stakeholders: Agency Vision and Goals Eliminating ALL remaining BSE barriers to export market

http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/07/aphis-usda-administrator-message-to.html