Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Declaration of Extraordinary Emergency Because of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy USA
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:59:18 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


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

[Federal Register: January 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1694]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja04-33]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. 04-001-1]


Declaration of Extraordinary Emergency Because of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has been detected in the
United States. BSE is a progressive neurological disorder of ruminants
that results from infection by an unconventional transmissible agent.
It appears that BSE is primarily spread through the use of ruminant
feed containing protein and other products from ruminants infected with
BSE. The disease was detected in the State of Washington and had not
previously been detected in the United States.
The presence of BSE presents a threat to U.S. livestock. It
constitutes a significant danger to the national economy and a
potential serious burden on interstate and foreign commerce. The
Department has reviewed the measures being taken by the State of
Washington to quarantine and regulate the herds in question and has
consulted with appropriate State Government and Indian tribal officials
in the State of Washington. Based on that review and consultation, and
the scope of the impact of this event on the national economy, the
Department has determined that the State may be unable to adequately
take the measures necessary to quarantine and dispose of animals that
may be infected with or exposed to BSE. Therefore, the Department has
determined that an extraordinary emergency exists because of BSE in the
State of Washington.
This declaration of extraordinary emergency authorizes the
Secretary to (1) hold, seize, treat, apply other remedial actions to,
destroy (including preventative slaughter), or otherwise dispose of,
any animal, article, facility, or means of conveyance if the Secretary
determines the action is necessary to prevent the dissemination of BSE
and (2) prohibit or restrict the movement or use within the State of
Washington, or any portion of the State of Washington, of any animal or
article, means of conveyance, or facility if the Secretary determines
that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the
dissemination of BSE. The appropriate State Government and Indian
tribal officials in Washington have been informed of these facts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This declaration of extraordinary emergency shall
become effective January 6, 2004.

Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 04-623 Filed 1-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-623.htm

TSS

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Declaration of Extraordinary Emergency Because of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy USA
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:33:47 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>


>
>
>The number of "downer cows" in the US is probably closer to 130,000 than
>200,000.
>

then Gomez and Detwiler both cannot count...they both claim from
190,000 to 200,000 (i have posted there quotes before on this list),
but even Detwiler stated, she really does not know, so it could be even
higher. Maybe Dr. Gomez would be so kind as to comment on his
figures, and maybe straighten any confusion up;-)

>That group
>has very little credibility in the US.
>

they have more than the FDA/USDA/APHIS/FSIS/DEHAVEN ET AL,
that's for sure.

ALSO, i find this Declaration of Emergency rather a few decades late.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf

furthermore, it is even comical when i read this;

> EFFECTIVE DATE: This declaration of extraordinary emergency shall
> become effective January 6, 2004.

and issued on Jan. 12, 2004? what took them so long$ maybe if they
would have decided to make the announcement _before_ ''WAY''
before, the Christmas Holidays, not so many folks would have consumed
the product that Dehaven said did not reach food chain. my God, how many
folks like this are out there, and of course, coincidentally enough, not
one single
word about the _real_ threat to human health, not one word$ makes folks
like
this feel real safe;

Ate madcow infected meat December 2003

laydee2(AT)aol.com

The madcow infected meat was distributed to our local grocery stores
from December 15th to December 23. The meat was pulled from the shelves
on December 23rd and recalled. A little too late for my family, since we
already ate most of the contaminated beef.

I can't begin to tell you how angry and upset I am about this. After
being sold for 9 days, I know there are many more people who have eaten
this meat. I would like to find and communicate with those who have. It
seems as though the government should do something for us if one of us
becomes ill from eating this meat. We need to join together and find out
how many of us are victims of this disaster, and work together to
support each other. Please pass this post on to anyone in the Portland,
Oregon area, or any other area in the country where the infected meat
was distributed. Please contact me if you have eaten the meat. Maybe, as
a group, we can make a difference...

OH, and the infamous 'Code Orange' also went up about the same time the
mad cow hit the fan.
another coincidence you may ask ? best to leave that for everyone's
imaginations, like the WMDs.

and for goodness sake don't anyone even consider any cover-up of any kind.

save the industry at all cost, even human lives;

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf

I don't think Saturday Night Live could put on a skit as comical as this
one.

NO, it's not funny, just so sad/mad, i laugh to keep from crying.
you should see the CJD submission coming in now. smoken!
no need to make it reportable though, it's all Alzheimers.

another thing, WHOM found this _only;-) mad cow in the USA?
this person ought to get a medal, cause i guarantee it was an accident
that should not have happened, and would not have happened if
the old regime had been there. speaking of old regime, i find it odd
that Dr. Detwiler and Dr. Miller both retire when the BSeee hit the
fan?

oh what tangled webs we weave, when all we do is practice to deceive.

will they ever learn from there mistakes........

TSS
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
TRANSCRIPT

MAD COW: The Other Side of the Story-Read the Materials from our January 15 Press Conference

http://www.whistleblower.org/uploads/Ongoing Investigation.pdf

UPI Exclusive: No mad cow tests in Wash.
By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 1/15/2004 11:35 AM
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Federal agriculture officials did not test any commercial cattle for mad cow disease through the first seven months of 2003 in Washington state -- where the first U.S. case of the disease was detected last month -- according to records obtained by United Press International.The U.S. Department of Agriculture's records of mad cow screenings, conducted on 35,000 animals between 2001 to 2003, also reveal no animals were tested for the past two years at Vern's Moses Lake Meats, the Washington slaughterhouse where the mad cow case was first detected.


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-041124-1470r


Recipients of blood or blood products "at vCJD risk"
Sheila M Bird

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7432/118?ecoll

TSS
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
North American Equity ResearchNew York13 January 2004

BSE (Mad Cow) Update:
Do Reports of sCJD Clusters Matter?

· There have been seven cases of human sCJD clusters identified in the
US in the last 15 years, in which people in a specific location were
diagnosed with sCJD, resulting in rates between 2.1 and 8.4 deaths per
million people for that specific location compared with the national
average of one in 1 million. · There is no proven link between sCJD and
BSE, and hence it is considered a different disease from vCJD (which has
been linked to BSE). However, the existence of clusters raises the
question of “contamination" or “infection”, and also raises the
hypothesis that rather than cases of sCJD these might have been cases of
vCJD. · Clusters are not spontaneous, they normally have a source.
Moreover, some cases of sCJD may have been improperly diagnosed as
Alzheimer's.· We continue to believe that as long as no further cases of
BSE-positive cows are found in North America and the industry has
respected the 1997 ban on animal feed for live cattle, beef consumption
in the US will not suffer. · Moreover, due to political pressure we
expect key overseas markets (Japan, South Korea, and Mexico) to open up
to US beef in the next six months – the recent 20% drop in cattle prices
can be attributed mainly to these import bans. · However, two concerns
linger and should be kept in mind by investors, 1) Has the 1997 ban on
animal feed for live cattle been honored by the beef industry? 2) Can
clusters of cases of sporadic CJD (or sCJD) really be a variant of CJD
and indeed be linked to BSE? In this note we focus on the issue of sCJD
clusters, and the potential impact that the growing debate on clusters
could have on beef consumption in the US. United StatesFoods
Pablo E. Zuanic(1-212) [email protected]hristopher M.
Bledsoe(1-212) [email protected]aniel
Ogbonna(212) [email protected]


State of Our Views Regarding BSE in the US
We continue to believe that as long as no further cases of BSE-positive
cows are found in North America and the industry has respected the 1997
ban on animal feed for live cattle, beef consumption in the US will not
suffer. Moreover, due to political pressure we expect key overseas
markets (Japan, South Korea, and Mexico) to open up to US beef in the
next six months – the recent 20% drop in cattle prices can be attributed
mainly to these import bans.
However, two concerns linger and should be kept in mind by investors, 1)
Has the 1997 ban on animal feed for live cattle been honored by the beef
industry? The government's General Accounting Office says it has not; 2)
Can clusters of cases of sporadic CJD (or sCJD as it is commonly known)
really be a variant of CJD and indeed be linked to BSE (vCJD is the
scientific term for the disease linked to mad cow)?
In this note we focus on the issue of sCJD clusters.
Do sCJD Clusters Matter?
The media focus (and as a result, the consumer at large) since December
23, thus far, has been on the potential of new BSE-positive cows being
found, and on the various initiatives the authorities are taking to
prevent an outbreak of BSE. However, the apparent existence of sCJD
clusters in the US has received little publicity. If sporadic (or
spontaneous) CJD is really spontaneous, it should not be found in
population clusters. The fact that it indeed has been found in clusters
raises concerns.
Understanding the "Difference" Between sCJD and vCJD
Prior to 1996 there was only one known type of CJD, and it was called
“sporadic” or “spontaneous” because it was unclear where it came from,
or how it was generated. In 1996 scientists in England "discovered" a
"variant" of CJD (vCJD), which they indicated could be linked to the
animal form of the disease (BSE or Mad Cow). Experts kept vCJD separate
from sCJD because unlike the new vCJD the original sCJD could not be
directly linked to BSE. However, not enough is known to be fully certain
that sporadic CJD is truly spontaneous and has no external catalyst. The
other notable difference between vCJD and sCJD is the incubation period.
Whereas sCJD has an average incubation period of 40 years and is
exceedingly rare in young people, vCJD can affect people of all ages and
has a much shorter incubation period of just two to five years. An even
more relevant difference is that sCJD is found in 1 out of 1 million
people per annum, or 5,000 cases per year on a global basis, while only
180 human cases of vCJD (the type of CJD linked to BSE) have ever been
reported.
Existence of Clusters of sCJD May Imply They Are Really Cases of vCJD
There have been seven sCJD clusters identified in the US in the last 15
years, in which people in a specific location were diagnosed with sCJD,
resulting in rates between 1.2 and 8.4 deaths per million people for
that specific location compared with the national average of one in 1
million. The existence of clusters raises the question of
“contamination" or “infection”, and also raises the hypothesis that
rather than cases of sCJD these might have been cases of vCJD. Clusters
are not spontaneous, they normally have a source.
A cluster consists of two statistical improbabilities: 1) multiple cases
occurring in a relatively limited geographic area, and 2) multiple cases
occurring within the same time period. The most recent cluster was found
in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The others have been found in Lehigh,
Pennsylvania (1986-90), Allentown, Pennsylvania (1989-92), Tampa,
Florida (1996-97), Oregon (2001-02), and Nassau County, New York
(1999-2000). Given that sCJD occurs randomly in one out of one million
cases, it is a statistical rarity to find an sCJD cluster – let alone
six. The following tables highlight known clusters in the US.
Table 1: Clustered sCJD Deaths
Local sCJD Deaths
Time Span State Local Area Pop. (MM) Period (mo.) Total Ann'lized
1986-1990 PA Lehigh Valley 0.5 48 18 4.5
1989-1992 PA Allentown 2.5 36 15 5.0
1996-1997 FL Tampa 2.2 18 13 8.7
1996-1999 TX Denton .01 38 4 1.3
1999-2000 NY Nassau County 1.3 12 7 7.0
2001-2002 OR Entire State 3.4 24 14 7.0
2000-2003* NJ Cherry Hill Area 1.7 36 12 4.0
Source: JPMorgan.

The second table, below, shows what portion of the state's total
expected sCJD cases (as based on a one per million occurrence) were
found in the local cluster, comparing the local cluster's portion of
cases with the local area's portion of the state's total population. The
greater the factor between the former and the latter suggests a higher
statistical improbability that the cluster is spontaneous (sCJD).
Table 2: Clustered sCJD Deaths vs. Expected State Cases
Annual Statewide Local Area (% of:)
Time Span State Local Area sCJD Deaths* exp. state cases state pop.
1986-1990 PA Lehigh Valley 11.9 37.8% 4.5%
1989-1992 PA Allentown 12.0 41.7% 20.8%
1996-1997 FL Tampa 14.1 61.5% 15.7%
1996-1999 TX Denton 20.9 6.1% .02%
1999-2000 NY Nassau County 18.1 38.7% 7.4%
2001-2002 OR Entire State 3.4 205.9% 100.0%
2000-2003* NJ Cherry Hill Area 8.0 50.0% 21.6%
* *State cases are extrapolated based on state population and the 1 per
million national average. Source: JPMorgan.

The CDC Is Currently Investigating the New Jersey Cluster
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has opened an investigation into
a cluster of deaths in an area surrounding Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Specifically, after dismissing the case when it was first brought to
their attention earlier in 2003, the agency has since reversed course
and on December 31, 2003 sought out information from Janet Skarbek.
Skarbek, a Cinnaminson, New Jersey CPA believes she has uncovered a
common link between seven deaths in the local area and a restaurant at
the now-closed Garden State Race Track. All of the deaths had first been
identified as the randomly occurring (one out of one million) cases of
sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (sCJD), and six of the deaths
occurred between 2000 and 2003.
Science Expanding its Knowledge of CJDs
Have Cases of sCJD Been Overlooked?
Dr. Omar Bagasra believes that a 29 year old that died of presumably
sCJD in the New Jersey cluster may have died from a new, mutated form of
CJD since sCJD has a typical incubation period of 40 years and is
limited to elderly patients in almost all cases. Moreover, he suspects
that the link between the seven local deaths (clustered geographically
and chronologically) indicates that the new form of the disease is
caused by some external catalyst, unlike the randomly occurring sporadic
CJD (sCJD). He adds, though, that there may actually have been other
unreported CJD-related deaths in the area since the disease is often
misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s.
Diagnoses of Alzheimer’s Might Have Been Cases of CJD
Lawrence Schonberger, the CDC epidemiologist who contacted Janet Skarbek
on December 31, is quoted separately as saying that sCJD is
underreported on death certificates, and that about 14 percent of cases
are missed. In fact, due to similarities between sCJD and Alzheimer’s
disease, a 1998 Yale study found that as many as 13 percent of
Alzheimer’s deaths are actually sCJD, but conservative estimates place
this number closer to 1 percent. If we extrapolate this finding to the
50,000 Alzheimer’s deaths each year in the US, the number of actual sCJD
deaths per year is somewhere between 500 and 6500. But, for us this
raises additional questions, since at a rate of one per million, the US
should not experience much more than 300 sCJD deaths in a single year.
Furthermore, Alzheimer cases have grown 50-fold in the last 25 years
from 857 cases in 1979 to 50,000 cases in today (albeit part of the
increase could very well be attributed to improvements in reporting).
Can sCJD Be Caused by External Agents?
A recent study out of Imperial College in London has led some to believe
that the same prions that cause the BSE-related vCJD may also cause a
disease that manifests itself in a way that more closely resembles
sporadic CJD. John Collinge, the scientist that conducted the
experiment, is basing this assertion on findings in the study’s mice,
which were injected with BSE prions. As expected, some of the mice
developed symptoms from vCJD, but unexpectedly, others suffered from
symptoms that more closely resembled sCJD. If true, the implications are
significant, as it will force scientists to consider whether cases of
sporadic CJD may actually have been caused by consumption of
contaminated beef.
Does All This Matter?
For now we await the results of the CDC investigation of the New Jersey
cluster. Previous investigations have found clusters to be just
coincidences. While this may be the case, we believe that the media may
start focusing more on the issue of clusters, and that the debate could
raise consumers’ concerns about beef.
But even in the worst case scenario that these clusters were indeed
linked to BSE, one could still make the argument that these cases were
generated before the 1997 ban on animal feed for cattle was imposed, and
that hence chances of contamination since then are unlikely. Still, the
question lingers, has the 1997 ban been respected? Will consumers
concerns increase as the discussion of CJD clusters hits the national media?
Bottom Line: If no new cases of BSE-positive cows are found and the
issue of CJD clusters is disregarded by consumers, then the effect on
beef consumption will be negligible. On the other hand, new cases of
infected cows and/or a wider debate of CJD clusters could indeed have an
effect on beef sales.




Analyst Certification
The research analyst who is primarily responsible for this research and
whose name is listed first on the front cover certifies (or in a case
where multiple analysts are primarily responsible for this research, the
analyst named first in each group on the front cover or named within the
document individually certifies, with respect to each security or issuer
that the analyst covered in this research) that: (1) all of the views
expressed in this research accurately reflect his or her personal views
about any and all of the subject securities or issuers; and (2) no part
of any of the research analyst's compensation was, is, or will be
directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views
expressed by the research analyst in this research.

JPMorgan Equity Research Ratings Distribution, as of December 31, 2003
Overweight Neutral Underweight
JPM Global Equity Research Coverage 37% 43% 21%
IB clients* 27% 25% 22%
Consumer - N. America & Latin 28% 56% 16%
IB clients* 43% 28% 40%
*Percentage of investment banking clients in each rating category.
For purposes of NASD/NYSE ratings distribution disclosure rules, our
Overweight rating most closely corresponds to a buy rating; our Neutral
rating most closely corresponds to a hold rating; and our Underweight
rating most closely corresponds to a sell rating.


Copyright 2003 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.—All rights reserved. Additional
information available upon request.

snip...TSS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
The National Cattlemens Association-- "Mad Cow Disease is solely an animal and economic Problem -- not a Public Health Problem"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
USA BSE UPDATE

Dave in Front of Washington Ag Comm giving testimony
that the cow was not a downer, but a walker;

http://www.maddeer.org/video/020304louthan2.ram

REPORT ON MEASURES RELATING TO
BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE)
IN THE UNITED STATES

2 February 2004

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/US_BSE_Report.doc

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/US_BSE_Report.pdf



TSS

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

February 6, 2004

UPDATE ON RUMINANT FEED (BSE) ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

To help prevent the establishment and amplification of BSE through feed
in the United States, FDA implemented a final rule that prohibits the
use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule,
Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations , became
effective on August 4, 1997.

This is an update on FDA enforcement activities regarding the ruminant
feed (BSE) regulation. FDA's CVM has assembled data from the inspections
that have been conducted AND whose final inspection report has been
recorded in the FDA's inspection database as of January 23, 2004 . As of
January 23, 2004 , FDA had received over 26,000 inspection reports. The
majority of these inspections (around 70%) were conducted by State
officials under contract to FDA, with the remainder conducted by FDA
officials.

Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to
reflect the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon
the objectionable conditions documented. These inspection conclusions
are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action
Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).

An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable
conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are
warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance
with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification
would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure
that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material.
Inspections classified with OAI violations will be promptly re-inspected
following the regulatory sanctions to determine whether adequate
corrective actions have been implemented

A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or
practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory
significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the
establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected.
Inspections classified with VAI violations are more technical violations
of Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations , (here
called the Ruminant Feed Ban) became effective on August 4, 1997.
Ruminant Feed Ban provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and
conditions involving non-ruminant feeds.

A NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable conditions
or practices were found during the inspection or the significance of the
documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further actions.

The results to date are reported here both by “segment of industry” and
“in total”. NOTE – A single firm can operate as more than one firm type.
As a result, the categories of the different industry segments are not
mutually exclusive.

RENDERERS

These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e., render) animal
proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills and or
protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.

*

Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported
to FDA – 235

*

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in
ruminant feed – 157 (67% of those active firms inspected.)

*

Of the 157 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most
recent inspection revealed that:

o

0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI

o

3 firms (1.9%) were classified as VAI

LICENSED FEED MILLS

FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed products. The
license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using certain
potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter
withdrawal time. This licensing has nothing to do with handling
prohibited materials under the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed
license from FDA is not required to handle materials prohibited under 21
CFR 589.2000.

*

Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported
to FDA – 1,085

*

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in
ruminant feed – 310 (29% of those active firms inspected.)

*

Of the 310 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most
recent inspection revealed that:

o

0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI

o

7 firms (2.2%) were classified as VAI

FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA

These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce medicated feeds.

*

Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported
to FDA – 5,071

*

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in
ruminant feed – 759 (15% of those active firms inspected.)

*

Of the 759 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most
recent inspection revealed that:

o

4 firms (0.5%) were classified as OAI

o

39 firms (5.1%) were classified as VAI

PROTEIN BLENDERS

These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose of producing a
quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.

*

Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported
to FDA -- 252

*

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in
ruminant feed -- 71 (28% of those active firms inspected.)

*

Of the 71 active firms handling prohibited materials, their most
recent inspection revealed that:

o

0 firms (0%) were classified as OAI

o

2 firms (2.8%) were classified as VAI

RENDERERS, FEED MILLS AND PROTEIN BLENDERS

This category includes any firm that is represented by any of the above
four categories, but includes only those firms that manufacture, process
or blend animal feed or feed ingredients utilizing prohibited materials.

*

Number of active renderers, feed mills and protein blenders whose
initial inspection has been reported to FDA - 6,465

*

Number of active renderers, feed mills and protein blenders
processing with prohibited materials – 540 (8.3% of those active
firms inspected)

*

Of the 540 of active renderers, feed mills and protein blenders
processing with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection
revealed that:

o

5 firms (0.9%) were classified as OAI

o

24 firms (4.4%) were classified as VAI

OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED

Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm mixers, pet
food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers, and
animal feed transporters.

*

Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported
to FDA – 9,781

*

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in
ruminant feed – 1,396 (14% of those active firms inspected)

*

Of the 1,396 active firms handling prohibited materials, their
most recent inspection revealed that:

o

5 firms (0.4%) were classified as OAI

o

68 firms (4.9%) were classified as VAI

TOTAL FIRMS

Note that a single firm can be reported under more than one firm
category; therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm
categories will be more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms,
as presented below.

*

Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been reported
to FDA – 13,672

*

Number of active firms handling materials prohibited from use in
ruminant feed – 1,949 (14% of those active firms inspected)

*

Of the 1,949 active firms handling prohibited materials, their
most recent inspection revealed that:\

o

5 firms (0.1%) were classified as OAI

o

85 firms (4.4%) were classified as VAI


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

Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Office of Management and Communications, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (301) 827-3800 FAX: (301) 827-4065
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm


TSS

########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

BSE Update — February 6, 2004


http://www.usda.gov/Newsroom/0069.04.html

Posted on the CVM Home Page (http://www.fda.gov/cvm) February 6, 2004



CVM Update - Update on Ruminant Feed (BSE) Enforcement Activities,
February 6, 2004

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/BSE0206up.htm


FSIS Constituent Update


February 6, 2004

FSIS Announces New Electronic Animal Disposition Reporting System

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/11-04.htm.

FSIS Unveils New Humane Handling Activities Tracking System

On February 2, 2004, FSIS announced the implementation of The Humane
Activities Tracking (HAT) program to document inspection activities to
ensure that livestock are humanely handled in federally inspected
facilities. HAT will provide FSIS with more accurate and complete data
on the time spent by FSIS personnel performing nine specific humane
handling related tasks to ensure humane handling and slaughter
requirements are met. The notice is available at

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/2004/hats.htm.


FSIS Issues Notice on Sanitation and Age Determination of Cattle


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/10-04.htm.

Public Health Alert Issued

On January 29, the Food Safety and Inspection Service issued a public
health alert to remind consumers of the importance of following food
safety guidelines when handling and preparing raw meat. FSIS issued the
alert after being informed by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) of an outbreak investigation involving 37 illnesses of
Salmonella Typhimurium in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York and Vermont. Many of the people who became ill
reported eating ground beef and some reported eating raw ground beef.
FSIS is working with the CDC to determine the source of the
contamination. The alert is available at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/2004/alert012904.htm.

Export Requirement Updates

The Library of Export Requirements has been updated to reflect changes
in export requirements for Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Malaysia, Saudi
Arabia and French Polynesia (Tahiti). Complete information can be found
at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OFO/export/explib.htm


Reminder: BSE Teaching Workshops Continue This Weekend

FSIS is holding a series of teaching workshops on Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) regulatory issues through March 2004. The second
in the series will occur this Saturday, February 7, in Boise, Idaho.
These programs have been designed to meet the needs of owners and
operators of small and very small establishments that process cattle or
produce products using Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) and for State plants
and State program personnel.


BSE Teaching Workshops Dates and Locations

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubevent.htm.

Reminder for USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum


http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/agforum.htm or by calling (202) 314-3451.

Microbiological Criteria for Foods Meeting to be Held

Access the agenda at
www.fsis.usda.gov/ophs/nacmcf/meetings.htm
<http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ophs/nacmcf/meetings.htm>.


Codex Schedules Public Meetings for 2004


http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.


THIS WEEK'S HOT WEB LINKS


SCRAPIE Infected and Source Flocks

As of September 30, 2003, there were 50 scrapie infected and source
flocks (figure 3
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/figure03.gif>).
There were 73 newly infected flocks reported in FY 2003 (figure 4
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/figure04.gif>).
In addition, 351 scrapie cases were also confirmed and reported by the
National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) (figures 5
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/figure05.gif>
and 6
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/figure06.gif>).
No case of scrapie in goats was reported in FY 2003. The last case was
confirmed in August 2002. New infected and source flock numbers and the
number of these flocks released in FY 2003 are depicted in chart 4
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/chart04.gif>.
Sixty flocks, which is equivalent to 82 percent of the new scrapie
infected and source flocks identified in FY 2003, were released or put
on clean-up plans in FY 2003.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/scrapie/yearly_report/yearly-report.html

Chronic Wasting Disease

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/

Surveillance

for the latest info on BSE Surveillance
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/updates/bse-surveillance.html>

For More Information

on animal health
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
1 (800) 601-9327

on animal and animal product import/export issues
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/>
1-866-873-2157 OR 1-866-USDA-157

on animal identification <http://usaip.info/>

on food safety, meat, meat products, or meat inspection
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service
<http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/bse.htm>
1 (800) 535-4555

Canada's BSE website
<http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bseesbindexe.shtml>
1 (800) 454-8408

For Other Government Agencies
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/updates/bse_other_govt.html>



Docket Management Docket: 02N-0273 - Substances Prohibited From Use in
Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
Comment Number: EC -10
Accepted - Volume 2

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

PART 2

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

PDF]Freas, William TSS SUBMISSION
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Page 1. J Freas, William From: Sent: To: Subject: Terry S. Singeltary
Sr. [[email protected]] Monday, January 08,200l 3:03 PM freas ...

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

Asante/Collinge et al, that BSE transmission to the 129-methionine
genotype can lead to an alternate phenotype that is indistinguishable
from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest _sporadic_ CJD;

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

Docket Management Docket: 96N-0417 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice
in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients a

Comment Number: EC -2

Accepted - Volume 7

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Mar03/031403/96N-0417-EC-2.htm


[PDF] Appendices to PL107-9 Inter-agency Working Group Final Report 1-1
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Agent, Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Unit Federal Bureau of
those who provided

comments in response to Docket No. ... Meager 8/18/01 Terry S.
Singeltary Sr ...

www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/pubs/PL107-9_Appen.pdf - Similar pages

# Docket No: 02-088-1 RE-Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of
2002; [TSS SUBMISSION ON POTENTIAL FOR BSE/TSE & FMD 'SUITCASE BOMBS'] -
TSS 1/27/03 (0)

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/9912395.html


Dockets Entered On October 02, 2003


... Dockets Entered On October 2, 2003 Table of Contents, Docket #,
Title, 1978N-0301,

OTC External Analgesic Drug Products, ... EMC 7, Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Vol #: 1, ...

www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm


Daily Dockets Entered on 02/05/03


DOCKETS ENTERED on 2/5/03. ... EMC 4 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 2.
... Vol#: 1.

03N-0009 Federal Preemption of State & Local Medical Device Requireme. ...

www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Feb03/020503/020503.htm


Docket Management
Docket: 02N-0370 - Neurological Devices; Classification of Human Dura Mater
Comment Number: EC -1
Accepted - Volume 1


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jan03/012403/8004be11.html

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

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

CJD WATCH

http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm

CJD Watch message board

http://disc.server.com/Indices/167318.html

MAD COW NEWS

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/index.html

TSS
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top