# Downers That Walk To Just Send The Damn Thing To The Render Mad Or Not $



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Congressman Henry Waxmans's Letter to the Honorable Ann Veneman on failure by USDA/APHIS TO TEST TEXAS MAD COW
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 09:33:54 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


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

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143


www.house.gov/reform

May 13, 2004


The Honorable Ann M. Veneman
Secretary of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250

Dear Madam Secretary:

1 am writing to express concern that the recent failure of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to test a Texas cow with neurological symptoms for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) may reflect wider problems in the surveillance program. USDA
apparently does not keep track of how many cows condemned for central nervous system
symptoms are tested for BSE nor does it require that suspect carcasses be held pending testing.
Effective surveillance and control of BSE in the United States require a reliable system for
ensuring that potentially infected cows are tested and that no infected materials enter the animal or human food supply.

Under USDA regulations, any cow that exhibits signs of central nervous system (CNS)
problems must be condemned by Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) personnel at the plant.1
According to a 1997 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Memorandum, brain
samples all of such animals should be sent for BSE testing.2 The memorandum notes that "_t is
essential that brain specimens be collected from adult cattle condemned for CNS signs as part of
our national surveillance of BSE."3

The cow slaughtered at the Lone Star Beef slaughterhouse last week staggered and fell,
and was condemned ante mortem by FSIS personnel.4 Despite a request from APHIS personnel

1 9 CFR 309.4.

2 USDA APHIS, Veterinary Services Memorandum No. 580.16. Procedures/or
Investigation of Adult Cattle With Clinical Signs of Central Nervous System (CNS) Disease and
Procedures for Surveillance of Downer Cows for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
(June 11,1997).

3 Id.

4 U.S. Confirms a Failure to Use Mad Cow Test, Wall Street Journal (May 4, 2004).

The Honorable Ann M. Veneman
May 13,2004
Page 2

at the plant to conduct BSE testing, however, an APHIS supervisor in Austin reportedly refused
the test and instructed the plant to send the carcass for rendering.5

This sequence of events is troubling, and it raises the question of whether this is an
isolated incident. In 1997, USDA noted a major gap between the number of cattle condemned
for CNS symptoms and the number of these cows actually tested for mad cow disease. The
Department found:

Based on information provided by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the
number of adult cattle (2 years of age or greater) condemned at slaughter due to CNS
signs is much greater than the number whose brains have been collected for testing.6

Despite recognizing the problem more than six years ago, however, USDA apparently did
not adopt procedures to ensure that these samples would be collected. In March 2004, the
Government Reform Committee asked USDA to provide, for each of the last five years, the
number of BSE tests performed on cattle condemned by FSIS inspectors on the basis of CNS
symptoms.7 In response, USDA provided information on the numbers of cattle condemned for
CNS symptoms by FSIS, but replied that "t is not possible to determine, from the data we
currently collect, how many of these cattle were tested by APHIS for BSE."8 It thus appears that
not only does USDA not routinely track the gap between the number of condemned and tested
cattle, but that USDA could not even calculate this gap when requested to do so by Congress.

There also appears to be a lack of clarity regarding the disposition of cattle with CNS
symptoms while BSE tests are pending. In the past, companies could send cattle awaiting BSE
testing results for rendering, which would allow their remains to be used in feed for animals
other than ruminants, such as pigs and chickens. After this incident, both FDA and USDA
policy appear to have changed  in different ways.

USDA policy has apparently shifted to requesting that companies not send cattle to
rendering while awaiting test results. A May 5, 2004 memo from APHIS states, "it is requested
 though not required  that [the cattle] not go to inedible rendering until the sample comes

USDA's San Angelo Vets and Techs Ordered Not to Test Suspect Cow, Meating Place
(May 5, 2004).

6 USDA APHIS, supra note 2.

7 Letter from Rep. Tom Davis and Rep. Henry A- Waxman to Secretary of Agriculture
Ann M. Veneman (Mar. 8, 2004).

8 Letter from Ronald F. Hicks, Assistant Administrator, Office of Program Evaluation,
Enforcement, and Review- FSIS. to Reo. Henrv A. Waxman- Attachment 1 (Mar. 22- 2004).

The Honorable Ann M. Veneman
May 13,2004
Page 3

back negative."9 There is no explanation of why this course of action is requested, but not
required.

FDA policy also appears to have shifted towards prohibiting the use of carcasses of cattle
with CNS symptoms and indeterminate BSE status in certain types of animal feed. On April 30,
FDA requested that the rendering company holding the remains of the Texas cow either destroy
them or use them exclusively in swine feed. m the case that the remains are included in swine
feed, 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."10

Any confusion over what to do with cattle condemned for CNS symptoms awaiting
testing for BSE seems unnecessary. The obvious approach is to require companies either to
destroy the carcasses or hold them until test results become available. Such a policy would avoid any need for complicated traceback procedures after the discovery of a positive result.
According to the information provided to the Committee by USDA, the FSIS has condemned
only 200 to 250 cows per year because of signs of central nervous system damage." Mandating
the destruction or holding of their carcasses would have minimal economic impact.

The experience with the BSE-infected cow in Washington State illustrates the prudence
of waiting for the results of BSE tests. Prior to December 2003, USDA permitted cattle that
were sampled as part of the BSE surveillance program to enter commerce even while BSE tests
were pending. As a result, when the BSE-infected cow was discovered, it had already entered
the food supply. This led to a complicated and partially successful traceback procedure in which
hundreds of thousands of pounds of beef had to be destroyed. Because of this debacle, USDA
quickly developed a new policy to require holding all carcasses from the human food chain
during BSE testing.

I appreciate that you have taken steps to enhance the safety of the U.S. food supply since
the discovery of BSE in the United States. I urge you to consider the lessons of this latest

9 Memo from John R. Clifford, Acting Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services, and
William Smith, Assistant Administrator, Office of Field Operations, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, to VSMT, Regional Directors, Area Veterinarians in Charge, and Veterinary Services,
Subject: Policy Statement Regarding BSE Sampling of Condemned Cattle at Slaughter Plants -
for Immediate Implementation (May 5, 2004) (online at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/BSE_APHIS-FSIS.pdf).

10 FDA, Statement on Cow -with Central Nervous System Symptoms (Apr. 20, 2004)
(online at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html).

11 The yearly totals of FSIS antemortem CNS condemnation for all adult cattle were 233
(1999), 220 (2000), 201 (2001), 249 (2002), and 247 (2003). The database for 2003 had not yet
closed.

The Honorable Ann M. Veneman
May 13,2004
Page 4

incident. USDA should develop a process that ensures the tracking of cattle condemned for CNS
signs and should institute a policy requiring all carcasses with pending BSE tests to be destroyed or held. If there are any statutory barriers to these steps, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

XXXXX X. XXXXXX

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member

Congressman Henry Waxmans's Letter to the Honorable Ann Veneman
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf

TSS



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DOWNER COW COUNT USA (number as high as 1.5% of all cattle, or nearly 1.8 million cows per year)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:11:23 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


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

Greetings List members,

with the ongoing debate of downer cattle going to the human/animal
food chain, I thought it might be interesting to look at some past
and present data...TSS

March 2002
Livestock Mortalities:
Methods of Disposal and Their
Potential Costs

snip...

The estimates of livestock mortalities used throughout this report are
believed to not include most downer livestock, many of which are
currently processed into human food at specialized slaughter facilities.
The number of downer livestock in the US is unknown, but estimates put the
number as high as 1.5% of all cattle, or nearly 1.8 million cows per
year (National Market Cow and Bull Audit).

snip...

http://www.renderers.org/economic_impact/MortalitiesFinal.pdf


ALSO, again, I must imphasize the importance of banning ALL DOWNERS
for human/animal consumption. WHEN an animal has a CNS disorder, they
are apt to fall and brake a leg etc. when symptoms first appear. We must
not let political science hinder true science. The agent will just
continue to spread.

suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

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


MRC-43-00 [ ] [Text only version of this site] [Print this page]
Issued: Monday, 28 August 2000

NEW EVIDENCE OF SUB-CLINICAL PRION INFECTION: IMPORTANT RESEARCH
FINDINGS RELEVANT TO CJD AND BSE

A team of researchers led by Professor John Collinge at the Medical
Research Council Prion Unit1 report today in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, on new evidence for the existence of a
?sub-clinical? form of BSE in mice which was unknown until now.

The scientists took a closer look at what is known as the ?species
barrier? - the main protective factor which limits the ability of
prions2 to jump from one species to infect another. They found the mice
had a ?sub-clinical? form of disease where they carried high levels of
infectivity but did not develop the clinical disease during their normal
lifespan. The idea that individuals can carry a disease and show no
clinical symptoms is not new. It is commonly seen in conventional
infectious diseases.

Researchers tried to infect laboratory mice with hamster prions3 called
Sc237 and found that the mice showed no apparent signs of disease.
However, on closer inspection they found that the mice had high levels
of mouse prions in their brains. This was surprising because it has
always been assumed that hamster prions could not cause the disease in
mice, even when injected directly into the brain.

In addition the researchers showed that this new sub-clinical infection
could be easily passed on when injected into healthy mice and hamsters.

The height of the species barrier varies widely between different
combinations of animals and also varies with the type or strain of
prions. While some barriers are quite small (for instance BSE easily
infects mice), other combinations of strain and species show a seemingly
impenetrable barrier. Traditionally, the particular barrier studied here
was assumed to be robust.

Professor John Collinge said: "These results have a number of important
implications. They suggest that we should re-think how we measure
species barriers in the laboratory, and that we should not assume that
just because one species appears resistant to a strain of prions they
have been exposed to, that they do not silently carry the infection.
This research raises the possibility, which has been mentioned before,
that apparently healthy cattle could harbour, but never show signs of, BSE.

"This is a timely and unexpected result, increasing what we know about
prion disease. These new findings have important implications for those
researching prion disease, those responsible for preventing infected
material getting into the food chain and for those considering how best
to safeguard health and reduce the risk that theoretically, prion
disease could be contracted through medical and surgical procedures."

ISSUED FRIDAY 25 AUGUST UNDER EMBARGO. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE EMBARGO IS
SET BY THE JOURNAL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE MRC PRESS OFFICE ON 020 7637 6011
(OFFICE HOURS) OR 07818 428297 OR 0385 774357 (OUT-OF-OFFICE-HOURS) OR
PROFESSOR JOHN COLLINGE ON 020 7594 3760. PLEASE NOTE THAT OWING TO
TRAVEL COMMITMENTS PROFESSOR COLLINGE WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE UNTIL 16.30
ON FRIDAY 25 AUGUST AND CONTACTABLE AGAIN ON MONDAY 28 AUGUST VIA THE
MRC PRESS OFFICE. DR ANDREW HILL (A CO-AUTHOR ON THE PAPER) FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE WILL BE AVAILABLE
ON 00 61 3 8344 3995 (DURING OFFICE HOURS) OR 00 61 3 9443 0009
(OUT-OF-OFFICE HOURS). PLEASE NOTE THAT AUSTRALIA IS TEN HOURS AHEAD OF
UK TIME.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

Professor Collinge is a consultant neurologist and Director of the newly
formed MRC Prion Unit based at The Imperial College School of Medicine
at St Mary?s Hospital. He is also a member of the UK Government?s
Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). The MRC prion unit
is was set up in 1999, and its work includes molecular genetic studies
of human prion disease and transgenic modelling of human prion diseases.

Prions are unique infectious agents that cause fatal brain diseases such
as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in humans and scrapie and BSE (mad
cow disease) in animals. In some circumstances prions from one species
of animals can infect another and it is clear that BSE has done this to
cause the disease variant CJD in the UK and France. It remains unclear
how large an epidemic of variant CJD will occur over the years ahead.

The strain of prion used here to infect the mice is the Sc237 strain
(also known as 263K) which infects hamsters, and until now was assumed
not to infect mice.

This research was funded by the Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust.

The Medical Research Council (MRC) is a national organisation funded by
the UK tax-payer. Its business is medical research aimed at improving
human health; everyone stands to benefit from the outputs. The research
it supports and the scientists it trains meet the needs of the health
services, the pharmaceutical and other health-related industries and the
academic world. MRC has funded work which has led to some of the most
significant discoveries and achievements in medicine in the UK. About
half of the MRC?s expenditure of £345 million is invested in over 50 of
its Institutes and Units, where it employs its own research staff. The
remaining half goes in the form of grant support and training awards to
individuals and teams in universities and medical schools.

The Wellcome Trust is the world's largest medical research charity with
a spend of some £600 million in the current financial year 1999/2000.
The Wellcome Trust supports more than 5,000 researchers, at 400
locations, in 42 different countries to promote and foster research with
the aim of improving human and animal health. As well as funding major
initiatives in the public understanding of science, the Wellcome Trust
is the country's leading supporter of research into the history of medicine.

©2002 Medical Research Council

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/public_i...blic-press_releases_2000/public-mrc-43-00.htm

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

suppressed peer review of Harvard study October 31, 2002

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

kind regards,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr._


----------

