r-calf and the USA mad cow problem, don't look, don't find, and then blame Canada

Greetings cjdvoice,

don't be fooled cjdvoice. r-calf jumped on the mad cow band wagon only after a federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the shipment of bone-in cuts of meat to the United States. the mad cow was out of the barn in North America, they knew it, and jumped on that to better surve themselves to block Canadian beef. it had nothing to do with consumer safety, and it had everything to do with r-calf closing the Canadian border so USA cattle ranchers would have a closed market here. it's all about money$ r-calf whines about Canada and it's feed ban, and it's mad cows, while the USA has been covering up mad cow disease, this is fact. it took the OIG and an act of congress to finally document that Texas mad cow. this beside the one they did succeed in covering up in Texas. then you had 9,200 suspect mad cows that were ONLY TESTED with the least likely test to detect mad cow disease.


USDA: In 9,200 cases only one type of test could be used

WASHINGTON (AP)--The U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged Aug. 17 that its testing options for bovine spongiform encephalopathy were limited in 9,200 cases despite its effort to expand surveillance throughout the U.S. herd.

In those cases, only one type of test was used--one that failed to detect the disease in an infected Texas cow.

The department posted the information on its website because of an inquiry from The Associated Press.

Conducted over the past 14 months, the tests have not been included in the department's running tally of BSE tests since last summer. That total reached 439,126 on Aug. 17.

"There's no secret program," the department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said in an interview. "There has been no hiding, I can assure you of that."

Officials intended to report the tests later in an annual report, Clifford said.

These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC.

In the Texas case, officials had declared the cow free of disease in November after an IHC test came back negative. The department's inspector general ordered an additional kind of test, which confirmed the animal was infected.

Veterinarians in remote locations have used the preservative on tissue to keep it from degrading on its way to the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa. Officials this year asked veterinarians to stop using preservative and send fresh or chilled samples within 48 hours.

The department recently investigated a possible case of BSE that turned up in a preserved sample. Further testing ruled out the disease two weeks ago.

Scientists used two additional tests--rapid screening and Western blot--to help detect BSE in the country's second confirmed case, in a Texas cow in June. They used IHC and Western blot to confirm the first case, in a Washington state cow in December 2003.

"The IHC test is still an excellent test," Clifford said. "These are not simple tests, either."

Clifford pointed out that scientists reran the IHC several times and got conflicting results. That happened, too, with the Western blot test. Both tests are accepted by international animal health officials.

Date: 8/25/05



http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug29/BSEtestoptionswerelimited.cfm



""These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC."

THIS WAS DONE FOR A REASON!

THE IHC test has been proven to be the LEAST LIKELY to detect BSE/TSE in the bovine, and these were probably from the most high risk cattle pool, the ones the USDA et al, SHOULD have been testing. ...TSS

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

2005

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

CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006

The 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



In this context, a word is in order about the US testing program. After the discovery of the first (imported) cow in 2003, the magnitude of testing was much increased, reaching a level of >400,000 tests in 2005 (Figure 4). Neither of the 2 more recently indigenously infected older animals with nonspecific clinical features would have been detected without such testing, and neither would have been identified as atypical without confirmatory Western blots. Despite these facts, surveillance has now been decimated to 40,000 annual tests (USDA news release no. 0255.06, July 20, 2006) and invites the accusation that the United States will never know the true status of its involvement with BSE.

In short, a great deal of further work will need to be done before the phenotypic features and prevalence of atypical BSE are understood. More than a single strain may have been present from the beginning of the epidemic, but this possibility has been overlooked by virtue of the absence of widespread Western blot confirmatory testing of positive screening test results; or these new phenotypes may be found, at least in part, to result from infections at an older age by a typical BSE agent, rather than neonatal infections with new "strains" of BSE. Neither alternative has yet been investigated.



http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0965.htm



http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/02/report-on-testing-ruminants-for-tses-in.html



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement May 4, 2004 Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####



http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/new01061.html



USDA: In 9,200 cases only one type of test could be used

WASHINGTON (AP)--The U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged Aug. 17 that its testing options for bovine spongiform encephalopathy were limited in 9,200 cases despite its effort to expand surveillance throughout the U.S. herd.

In those cases, only one type of test was used--one that failed to detect the disease in an infected Texas cow.

The department posted the information on its website because of an inquiry from The Associated Press.

Conducted over the past 14 months, the tests have not been included in the department's running tally of BSE tests since last summer. That total reached 439,126 on Aug. 17.

"There's no secret program," the department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said in an interview. "There has been no hiding, I can assure you of that."

Officials intended to report the tests later in an annual report, Clifford said.

These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC.

In the Texas case, officials had declared the cow free of disease in November after an IHC test came back negative. The department's inspector general ordered an additional kind of test, which confirmed the animal was infected.

Veterinarians in remote locations have used the preservative on tissue to keep it from degrading on its way to the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa. Officials this year asked veterinarians to stop using preservative and send fresh or chilled samples within 48 hours.

The department recently investigated a possible case of BSE that turned up in a preserved sample. Further testing ruled out the disease two weeks ago.

Scientists used two additional tests--rapid screening and Western blot--to help detect BSE in the country's second confirmed case, in a Texas cow in June. They used IHC and Western blot to confirm the first case, in a Washington state cow in December 2003.

"The IHC test is still an excellent test," Clifford said. "These are not simple tests, either."

Clifford pointed out that scientists reran the IHC several times and got conflicting results. That happened, too, with the Western blot test. Both tests are accepted by international animal health officials.

Date: 8/25/05



http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug29/BSEtestoptionswerelimited.cfm



""These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC."

THIS WAS DONE FOR A REASON!

As for lowering standards, R-CALF has referenced the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) as the authority on animal health issues. That's fine, as far as it goes. Trouble is, the OIE does not set standards, as R-CALF has claimed. Further, the OIE does not recommend countries ban meat imported - with SRMs removed - from countries with low or high BSE risk, contrary to R-CALF's implication.

In addition, there are no standards recognized for importing meat from minimal- or low-risk BSE countries. The U.S. is trying to set standards as precedent for trade, based on nearly 20 years of science. R-CALF wants trade only with countries who have never had a BSE case. They have not explained how many years they want the rest of the world to sit around and wait until it's okay to trust science and begin trading. Or how they would justify keeping imports out if ever a BSE case was discovered in the U.S. or export again ever.



http://www.mad-cow-facts.com/News-Commentary/r-calf-bullard-4-4-05.htm



JUST ABOUT EVERY COUNTRY THAT WENT BY THOSE FAILED OIE BSE GUIDELINES WENT DOWN WITH BSE. ...TSS

OH, NOT TO FOGET ;

Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program

An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.

snip...

4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half



http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf



AND WHILE R-CALF PREACHES THE MAD COW FEED GOSPEL ABOUT CANADA, WHAT'S R-CALFERS BEEN FEEDING USA HERDS ???


In 2007, in one weekly enforcement report, the fda recalled 10,000,000+ pounds of BANNED MAD COW FEED, 'in commerce', and i can tell you that most of it was fed out ;

10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007

Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST REASON Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 42,090 lbs. DISTRIBUTION WI

REASON Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 9,997,976 lbs. DISTRIBUTION ID and NV

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007



http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html



Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL, TN, AND WV Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST

snip...

see listings and references of enormous amounts of banned mad cow protein 'in commerce' in 2006 and 2005 ;

see full text ;

Friday, April 25, 2008 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed [Docket No. 2002N-0273] (Formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) RIN 0910-AF46



http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/04/substances-prohibited-from-use-in.html



SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS



http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html



SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS



http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html



DO YOU SEE A PATTERN YET $$$


R-CALF, consumer groups demand public BSE hearings

The battle between the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the upstart Rancher's Cattlemen's Action Legal Fund intensified this week as differences over trade issues and consumer safety were brought to a boil. Specifically, R-CALF joined three consumer activist groups in a press conference denouncing the USDA's handling of BSE prevention and detection policies, implying that American consumers are at risk from the disease. The groups joining R-CALF were Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union. R-CALF and the consumer groups called on the USDA to "maintain the current ban on Canadian beef and cattle imports until a scientific analysis can be conducted by a balanced panel of experts under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences." NCBA president Jan Lyons called R-CALF's actions "shocking," and said "These groups are apparently willing to destroy consumer confidence in our products to achieve their partisan political gains, such as damaging the reputation of the Bush Administration and blocking international trade."

"It is inexcusable for cattle producers to align themselves with consumer activist groups that have for decades tried to destroy the favorability of beef in the American diet. NCBA and its members are committed to building consumer demand for beef and ensuring that our consumers have the safest product in the world for their families," Lyons said. To read more, click here.

INCREDIBLE! Just three weeks ago, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard rocked the beef industry by saying "USDA was playing fast and loose with the safety and health of U.S. consumers," after a federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the shipment of bone-in cuts of meat to the United States. Now, the organization that claims to represent independent cattle ranchers and feeders saddles up with three anti-beef activist groups to prevent the USDA from continuing trade with Canada. R-CALF has now lost all claim to the "independent" flag they so proudly wave. And this week's actions prove they will use any tactic to further their isolationist , anti-trade policies. -Greg Henderson, Drovers editor-Drovers Alert Thursday, May 27, 2004, Vol. 4, Issue 21

R-CALF USA offers the following proposed framework that will (A) strengthen our resistance to BSE, (B) maintain long-term consumer confidence in our U.S. beef supply, and (C) conform to existing law, without necessitating new legislation. Immediately following our suggested framework is a narrative demonstrating the seriousness of this specific BSE threat as well as identifying the weaknesses associated with both the United States? and Canada?s initial response. Specifically, the narrative following our proposed framework will demonstrate: 1. The World Organization for Animal Health established a seven-year waiting period following a confirmed BSE case in native cattle before a BSE Free status is reinstated. 2. Past experience shows that the finding of only a single case of BSE within a year?s time provides little assurance that the disease is contained. 3. The frequency of BSE outbreaks outside the United Kingdom has increased significantly and BSE has spread to 12 new countries, including Canada, since 2000. 4. The USDA has maintained public confidence in its ability to protect its citizens from BSE by assuring the public that it has prohibited the importation of ruminant animals from countries where BSE is known to exist in native cattle since 1989. 5. The United States does not now have the ability to identify all foreign livestock within the United States or to recall or otherwise segregate foreign meat products should the need arise to do so. 6. The current BSE detection and notification procedures of our trading partners need to be tightened. Our proposed framework recognizes the foregoing facts and weakness in our current system and is designed to bolster our logistical ability to resist BSE.

snip...

Narrative in Support of R-CALF USA?s Proposed Framework R-CALF USA?s proposed framework is a measured response to the following facts, concerns, and questions arising from the single case of BSE discovered in Canada on or before May 20, 2003. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) sets international standards for managing the human and animal health risks associated with BSE. The OIE uses seven years as the period in which a country or zone must have no case of BSE in indigenous cattle in order to achieve a BSE Free status, representing the lowest level of risk.9 The OIE defines a zone as a ?clearly defined part of the territory of a country with a distinct animal health statues. The following types of zones are recognized: free zone, infected zone, surveillance zone and buffer zone.?10

snip...

Strengthening the United State?s Resistance to BSE 6 May 30, 2003 Moreover, BSE has been rapidly spreading to new countries since 2000. In 1999 only 12 countries in addition to the U.K. had reported one or more cases of BSE. By end of year 2002, there were 22 countries in addition to the U.K. reporting one or more cases of BSE, representing an 80 percent increase in the geographical distribution of the disease.13 While the United States acted properly to ban the feeding of meat and bone meal to ruminants in 199714, thus ensuring that BSE would not spread within the U.S. cattle herd, the concern remains that BSE could be introduced into the U.S. from imported cattle or beef. The worldwide spread of BSE is not yet contained. Just since 2000, the countries of Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain have all had one or more confirmed cases of BSE originating from native cattle.15


http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/2004-06/030530-LetterToCongressBSEPlan.pdf


R-CALF, consumer groups demand public BSE hearings

The battle between the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the upstart Rancher's Cattlemen's Action Legal Fund intensified this week as differences over trade issues and consumer safety were brought to a boil. Specifically, R-CALF joined three consumer activist groups in a press conference denouncing the USDA's handling of BSE prevention and detection policies, implying that American consumers are at risk from the disease. The groups joining R-CALF were Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union. R-CALF and the consumer groups called on the USDA to "maintain the current ban on Canadian beef and cattle imports until a scientific analysis can be conducted by a balanced panel of experts under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences." NCBA president Jan Lyons called R-CALF's actions "shocking," and said "These groups are apparently willing to destroy consumer confidence in our products to achieve their partisan political gains, such as damaging the reputation of the Bush Administration and blocking international trade."

"It is inexcusable for cattle producers to align themselves with consumer activist groups that have for decades tried to destroy the favorability of beef in the American diet. NCBA and its members are committed to building consumer demand for beef and ensuring that our consumers have the safest product in the world for their families," Lyons said. To read more, click here.

INCREDIBLE! Just three weeks ago, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard rocked the beef industry by saying "USDA was playing fast and loose with the safety and health of U.S. consumers," after a federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the shipment of bone-in cuts of meat to the United States. Now, the organization that claims to represent independent cattle ranchers and feeders saddles up with three anti-beef activist groups to prevent the USDA from continuing trade with Canada. R-CALF has now lost all claim to the "independent" flag they so proudly wave. And this week's actions prove they will use any tactic to further their isolationist , anti-trade policies. -Greg Henderson, Drovers editor-Drovers Alert Thursday, May 27, 2004, Vol. 4, Issue 21


http://sfbfp.ifas.ufl.edu/nlDS6-04.html


R-CALF, founded about a decade ago, has feuded with American meat-packing giants who back the integration of the Canadian and U.S. beef industries.

It's a group that's appealed to a certain element down there that are highly protectionist,? said Mr. Laycraft.

R-CALF sued U.S. packers to force up prices and fought unsuccessfully to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian beef.

They've been promoting a whole range of policies to obstruct trade with Canada,? said Mr. Laycraft.

The BSE-spurred ban on Canadian beef was a godsend to American producers, driving up domestic cattle prices as the free flow of Canadian animals to U.S. packing plants stopped.

The border has reopened to processed Canadian-packed products ? know as boxed beef ? but not to live animals.

No one from R-CALF was available to comment but the group contends in its legal submissions there's no evidence Canadian screening procedures and rules regarding contamination of cattle feed will eliminate the BSE risk.

It claims the number of Canadian cases found so far suggest there are still undiscovered BSE-infected animals in the Canadian herd. It has also proffered scientific experts who argue young cattle still present a risk.

R-CALF's argument may have been sideswiped by the recent discovery of BSE in an older Texas animal, says Darcy Davis, president of the Alberta beef producers.

All R-CALF's arguments about different levels of risk all fall away with the finding of that cow,? he says, noting Canada has not closed its border in reaction to the Texas case.

The trade position of the U.S. government that they're provisionally free (of BSE), that falls away. Now we need to discuss how best to go back to trading all different kinds of cattle.?

The impasse concerns the U.S. agriculture secretary, Mr. Lloyd said.

It sends an inconsistent signal to our trading partners when we're asking Japan and other trading nations to open their markets to us, yet we're not opening our market to Canada for the same reason,? he said.

Mr. Lloyd said he sees R-CALF's position as hypocritical and self-defeating.


http://www.madcowblog.com/2005/07/articles/mad-cow-updates/mad-cow-dispute-before-the-courts/


Also concerning the effectiveness of the U.S. feed ban, the Complaint points out that without prohibiting the current use of cattle protein in poultry feed, and without prohibiting the use of poultry litter in cattle feed, the Final Rule creates a risk of transmission of BSE from Canadian cattle imported into the U.S. to domestic cattle, USDA improperly moved forward with lifting the ban on importing Canadian cattle while still considering the necessary measures to address poultry feed and wastes.


http://www.southdakotastockgrowers.org/r-calf%20lawsuit%201-11-05.htm



r-calf talks the talk NOW, but they need to practice what they preach at home. clean up their own backyards, stop worrying about Canada. the USA and Canadian cattle market, feed market, import and export between the two, were so intertwined, it was one market. Canada is just being honest, they are testing to find, and finding. the USDA et al did just the opposite, and or years and years that was o.k. with R-CALF. Canada's feed ban is stronger that the USA's feed ban. the only reason the USA is not finding mad cow cases of any phenotype is because of the SSS policy of shoot, shovel, and shut the hell up. ...


BSE MRR TSS, R-CALF ON CANADA VS USA


Bill Rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 1418 Location: GWN Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:

Texan wrote:

Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.

I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.

I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.

_________________

Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!

my answer to big muddy from canada ;

hello there Texan,

yep, you read it right. don't know what ya'll gonna do without me. you know i plan on retiring from this mess soon. the pay is simply too excessive ;-( i fed them all i had at the time, and they shot the teacher. then hired old stanley i heard, go figure, must have been all those PhDs i had ;-)

as with the fuji-tv, when they came here and interviewed me for a BSE show, that i don't know what happened too, or the madcowboy documentary i was asked to proofread, and did, assured i would get some credit for, to never hear from again, to the speech in south Korea i was to make Nov. 23, but was shipwrecked somehow there too, and that might have been a good thing considering all the riots, and they did get the information anyway, to the TSS documentary, that too fell apart for good reasons i suppose, to helping creekstone, and finally to the NIH attempted destruction of an historical bank of donated tissue from CJD victims, and that one i think i did manage to stop, and that thanks to a Republican John Cornyn, i simply think it's time to let you fellars and gals clear this mess up. i have wasted enough time. it will be a decade next Christmas. i just would hate to keep kicking the same old mad cow. i know what happened for the most part, and the ones that don't get it now, never will.

now there Texan, as far as your question, and confusion ;-) i bet you thought i was not going to answer it, or, maybe hoping i would ;

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.

I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.

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

hello again there Texan,

i don't guess it matters anymore, i don't think ill be testifying for anyone, unless it is my own execution.

i was willing to participate in good faith, and sound science, that is why i think i was never sent to testify,

because in my opinion, R-Calf only wanted to cherry-pick the science, to use to there advantage, to try and

claim that Canada had a worse BSE problem than the USA, and i could not conceed to that. the science did

not confirm this. all one has to do is read the BSE GBR risk assessments, and that is why GW/OIE et al revised

there own risk assessments ;-) the BSE MRR policy.

i don't know, maybe i misinterpreted it all, maybe not, you can be the judge ;

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

SNIP...END... SEE FULL TEXT ;



*** http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48



Saturday, April 11, 2009 CJD FOUNDATION SIDES WITH R-CALFERS NO BSE OR HUMAN TSE THERE OF IN USA 'don't be fooled'



http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/cjd-foundation-sides-with-r-calfers-no.html




FOR all these reasons, is why i oppose the CJD Foundation decission to side with a cattle company that over the years, was as responsible for exposing the USA consumer to mad cow disease as was Canada, and then submit a letter that was written and in support of blaming only Canada. This letter the CJD Foundation supports and ask you to write, is only in support of R-CALF and a closed market to Canada beef, ALL THE WHILE IGNORING AND NOT SAYING A WORD OF PAST AND PRESENT FAILLURES OF THE SAME THING HERE IN THE USA. don't be fooled CJDVOICE. if you support this letter the way it was written, you are only fooling yourselves. you are being played like a pawn. write your own letter/comment, tell them the rest of the story. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CANADA ! the only reason we don't find mad cow disease in the USA, is because they did everything they could do in NOT finding BSE in those some 800,000 cattle that were tested. even Paul Brown called it flawed. dont be fooled cjdvoice and cjd foundation members, don't be fooled. ...



CJD FOUNDATION AND R-CALF LETTER


Sample Comment Letter for Your Use (You are free to use all or part of this letter):

April 9, 2009 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket Number: FDA-2002-N-0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N-0273)

Dear Administrator,

As the family member of a loved one who has died of a Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), one form of which can be acquired by ingesting BSE contaminated beef, I want to express my outrage at the recent announcement of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) delay of its April 17, 2009 scheduled implementation of the final rule titled “Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed,” commonly referred to as the 2008 BSE final rule. They have made this announcement with full knowledge that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to subject U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to a heighted risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from imports of live Canadian cattle, particularly imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months (OTM) of age.

In Canada the disease occurrence is between three cases per million to eight cases per million cattle. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states the level of BSE prevalence in the Canadian cattle herd is 18-fold to 48-fold higher than the prevalence estimated in the U.S. cattle herd. Just in 2008, nearly 1.6 million Canadian cattle were imported into the United States. By delaying the implementation of the Feed Ban the FDA risks yet another break in an already severely compromised food safety firewall.

When USDA reopened the U.S. border in 2007 to Canada’s highest-risk cattle population – OTM cattle – its risk modeling based on a Canadian BSE prevalence of fewer than 4 cases per million predicted that the U.S. would import over 100 head of BSE-infected cattle from Canada over the next 20 years. In addition, the risk modeling showed that human exposure to BSE would increase. However, as the CDC explained, the BSE prevalence in Canada could well be 8 cases per million, meaning that USDA likely has grossly underestimated the risk of introducing BSE-infected cattle into the U.S. as a result of allowing OTM Canadian cattle imports. Canada already has detected 16 native cases of BSE in its OTM cattle herd, 10 of which were born after the 1997 feed ban. The most recent of these cases was detected just last November. Nine of Canada’s BSE-infected cattle met USDA’s age requirements to be exported to the United States, as they were born after March 1, 1999, the date after which USDA erroneously claims BSE-infectivity was no longer circulating in Canada.

The current U.S. feed ban implemented in 1997 is comparable to the initial Canadian feed ban also implemented in 1997. Canada’s feed ban proved ineffective at preventing the spread of BSE in Canada. Despite the repeated urging of international scientists, Canada resisted any upgrades to its feed ban until after it detected multiple BSE cases in cattle born years after its 1997 feed ban. Canada’s July 2007 upgraded feed ban now protects Canadian consumers against the spread of BSE from Canadian cattle by closing known transmission routes, including cross-contamination and inadvertent feeding of contaminated cattle parts. It is unthinkable that the FDA would not afford U.S. consumers the same level of protection against these same Canadian cattle that are imported into the United States.

The FDA cannot legitimately argue that its current feed ban implemented in 1997, which is nearly identical to Canada’s original feed ban also implemented in 1997, is any more effective at mitigating Canada’s heightened BSE risk within U.S. borders than it was in mitigating Canada’s heightened BSE risk in Canada. Nor can FDA ignore the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly shows that the current U.S. feed ban is insufficient to mitigate the heightened BSE risk associated with OTM cattle imported from Canada. These higher-risk OTM Canadian cattle are entering the U.S. at the rate of several thousand per week, are being commingled in the U.S. cattle herd where some would be expected to die, and are entering both the U.S. food system as well as the U.S. animal feed system. The U.S. already is accepting Canada’s higher BSE risk without the protections necessary to mitigate that higher risk.

The FDA cannot bury its head in the sand and pretend the upgraded feed ban contained in the 2008 BSE final rule is not urgently needed to mitigate the increased BSE risk associated with the importation of millions of Canadian cattle. In fact, the FDA already has failed to timely implement an upgraded feed ban, which should have been implemented before USDA began to expose U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to Canada’s heightened BSE risk.

The FDA has an absolute responsibility to protect the health and safety of U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd against this foreign animal disease which is always 100% fatal, and has been known to cross the species barrier infecting humans with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), the human form of BSE. We need only look to the United Kingdom’s recent tragic experience when it was discovered that BSE had crossed the species barrier to humans. Thus far this preventable disease has caused the deaths of 168 young adults. The long incubation period (which can be up to 40 years), means that tragically, there could be many more cases in the future. The FDA must break away from the manipulative actions by corporate-controlled, self-serving trade associations that have caused both FDA and USDA to endanger the health and safety of U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd by exposing them to an unnecessary and avoidable risk of BSE.

The USDA must immediately eliminate the source of this heightened BSE risk by prohibiting the importation of OTM Canadian cattle, and the FDA must immediately implement the 2008 BSE final rule to mitigate this heightened risk. There are no responsible alternatives.



http://cjdadvocacy.blogspot.com/2009/04/fda-food-ban.html



http://www.cjdfoundation.org/



CANADA DID NOT KILL MY MOTHER, AND HER DEATH WAS NO SPONTANEOUS EVENT, OR HAPPENSTANCE OF BAD LUCK. ...



Thursday, April 9, 2009

Docket No. FDA2002N0031 (formerly Docket No. 2002N0273) RIN 0910AF46 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed



http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/04/docket-no-fda2002n0031-formerly-docket.html



TSS