# More BSE in Canada and we are going to allow import?



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Today on Canadian radio I heard they found another case of BSE ( Mad Cow)
Also the USA plans on allowing beef imports in the near future as planned, claiming they allowed for new case discoveries in the projected ban lift date.

What the heck is up with that??????????????????


----------



## powderburns (Mar 3, 2003)

Canada has found it's second case of mad cow disease in the past 3 year's. Yet the U.S.A. has found 18-20 cases in the same time period. Do you know what your eating?


----------



## ontario boss gobler (Nov 18, 2004)

thanks I didn't really know how to reply to that with out starting a fight.:yikes:


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

opps. Removed my post. Just realised we were talking about the US as a whole and not only Michigan. Sorry, not awake yet.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

The three largest packers, who process 90% of the meat in the us, have lobbied to resume imports because rising prices to suppliers have cut into their profits. Big bussiness talks Bush listens!


----------



## sadocf1 (Mar 10, 2002)

USDA has allowed imports of boneless beef from animals under 30 months of age of Canadian origin for the past 3 or 4 months.
USDA now allows the importation of live beef animals (feeders) from Canada
that are under 2 years of age and they must be slaughtered by the time they are 30 months old.
Ex senator Hollings in a recent interview allowed as how industries write their own legislation, Congress in return for handsome and generous campaign contributions, makes it the law of the land. This is "Democracy in Action", where every dollar counts


----------



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Dr. Ron DeHaven giving more false assurances about latest confirmed Canadian Mad Cow while Ann says everything is o.k... (MORE BSeee)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:16:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


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



Statement by Ron DeHaven, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service

January 3, 2005

"Yesterday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed that an
older dairy cow from Alberta, Canada, has tested positive for bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The infected animal was born in 1996,
prior to the implementation of Canada's 1997 feed ban. No part of the
animal entered the human food or animal feed systems.

"USDA remains confident that the animal and public health measures that
Canada has in place, including the removal of specified risk material
(SRMs) from the human food chain, a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, a
national surveillance program and import restrictions, combined with
existing U.S. domestic safeguards and the additional safeguards
announced as part of USDA's BSE minimal-risk rule announced Dec. 29
provide the utmost protections to U.S. consumers and livestock.

'The extensive risk assessment conducted as part of USDA's rulemaking
process took into careful consideration the possibility that Canada
could experience additional cases of BSE.

"According to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines,
a country may be considered a BSE minimal-risk country if it has less
than 2 cases per million cattle over 24 months of age during each of the
previous 4 consecutive years. Considering Canada has roughly 5.5 million
cattle over 24 months of age, under OIE guidelines, they could detect up
to 11 cases of BSE in this population and still be considered a
minimal-risk country, as long as their risk mitigation measures and
other preventative measures were effective.

"USDA will continue to work closely with CFIA officials as their
investigation into this situation progresses."

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F01%2F0001.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

Transcript of U. S. Farm Report, Town and Country Living Year-end
interview with Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman As Aired January 1,
2005 on RFD-TV

snip...

"Obviously my time has been spent in large part on continuing on the BSE
crisis that we encountered."

MR. SAMUELSON: "That happened just before Christmas a year ago."

SEC. VENEMAN: "Exactly. And after our interview, there we were, the cow
who stole Christmas, December 23rd. And we've spent a lot of time
working through all of the issues-- increased strength of our
regulations, implementing animal ID, implementing an enhanced testing
program. There's been a whole host of issues we've had to deal with. And
that's taken a lot of time.

snip...

"MR. SAMUELSON: "Finally, back to BSE for a moment. You mentioned animal
identification. Are we making progress on that program?"

SEC. VENEMAN: "Absolutely. We are working closely with states and
organizations to implement premise ID, individual animal ID, and to put
it into a national database. Obviously this is a voluntary program as we
get it up and running, but we expect over time that it will become a
mandatory program that will allow us to trace back animals in the event
of a disease outbreak, particularly of disease like foot and mouth
disease where it spreads very, very quickly, and it's important to
quickly be able to see where the animals have gone so that we can see
where the disease might spread."

snip...

"The other day is December 23, 2003, the day that we discovered we had
our first case of BSE. And we then of course had to deal with the cow
who stole Christmas. And that took up a lot of what we did all of this
year in terms of implementing the programs in the aftermath of that."

MR. SAMUELSON: "But I give you high marks -- the cattle industry and you
as Secretary and your staff -- because we didn't go through the
difficult times that the Canadian growers went through."

SEC. VENEMAN: "Well, that's absolutely true. We kept demand high, prices
have stayed high. The cattle industry is in good shape, and that's
because consumer confidence remained strong."

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/01/0003.xml

Mad-Cow Disease
In Older Animal

By TAMSIN CARLISLE and JANET ADAMY
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 3, 2005; Page A3

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110471530901614939,00.html

CALGARY, Alberta -- The Canadian government said further testing
confirmed that an Alberta cow was infected with mad-cow disease,
bringing to three the number of Canadian cattle diagnosed with the
deadly brain-wasting disorder. However, U.S. and Canadian authorities
underscored that the development won't derail U.S. plans to lift a
19-month ban on imports of young Canadian cattle.

A U.S. Department of Agriculture official said late Sunday that the
positive test won't affect the U.S. agency's plan to start accepting in
March Canadian exports of live cattle younger than 30 months. That plan
to open the border to live animals was announced last week, just one day
before this third suspected North American case of mad-cow emerged.

As long as Canada has measures in place to prevent the disease-causing
agent in mad-cow disease from entering the human and animal food chains,
"it shouldn't be a problem," USDA spokesman Jim Rogers said in an
interview. He said the agency took into account the possibility that
Canada could discover more infected cows when it conducted a risk
assessment to consider lifting the ban on cattle imports. Marc Richard,
a spokesman for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said the infected
eight-year-old dairy cow was born on an Alberta farm in October 1996,
about a year before Canada and the U.S. banned from cattle feed any
processed remains from cattle or other ruminant animals. Before that
ban, it was common practice to feed animal renderings to cattle. Mr.
Richard said the infected cow probably contracted the disease by eating
contaminated feed before the new feed restriction, introduced to try to
prevent spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, also known
as mad-cow disease.

Mad-cow disease spreads primarily among cattle that ingest infected
material from the brains or spinal cords of other dead cattle or related
ruminant animals, such as sheep or goats. Humans may also contract a
fatal disease similar to BSE if they eat contaminated beef.

The Canadian agency said that no part of the latest infected cow entered
the human food chain or animal-feed system. It said the positive BSE
diagnosis doesn't indicate an increased risk to food safety, as Canada
requires the removal of brain and spinal-cord tissue -- the so-called
specified-risk material that can contain the infective BSE agent -- from
all animals entering the human food supply.

Many U.S. ranchers are objecting to the Canadian animals, though. The
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, a
U.S. cattle-trade group representing ranchers, says the finding shows
that the USDA is moving too quickly to relax its ban on Canadian cattle.
"Obviously Canada has a BSE problem," a spokesman said. "We need to be
looking at how to strengthen our resistance against BSE rather than to
relax our standards that have thus far protected U.S. citizens and the
U.S. cattle industry." The group plans to ask Congress to oppose the
decison of the USDA.

But Dennis Laycraft, executive vice president of the Canadian
Cattlemen's Association, representing Canadian ranchers, said that
Sunday's confirmation of the sick animal wasn't unexpected and reflected
improved surveillance and testing for the disease in Canada. "As we
improve these things, we remain optimistic that we'll see a gradual
opening up of markets," he said.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency reported Thursday that preliminary
tests indicated possible BSE contamination in an Alberta dairy cow that
had been segregated and slaughtered as a "downer" animal, that is, one
unable to stand. Samples from the dead animal's brain were sent to a
laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba, for further tests that confirmed the
disease. The agency said it is continuing its investigation into the case.

Mr. Richard said the cow most likely became infected by consuming cattle
feed containing remains of infected cattle imported from Britain, prior
to the 1997 feed restrictions. The United Kingdom had a severe outbreak
of BSE in the 1980s and 1990s, involving more than 180,000 infected animals.

The U.S. banned all imports of Canadian cattle and beef products in May
2003, after Canada found its first indigenous case of BSE on an Alberta
farm. The U.S. lifted import restrictions on some Canadian beef products
the following August, but the ban on live-cattle imports remained in place.

Write to Tamsin Carlisle at [email protected]
and Janet Adamy at [email protected]



Union: Meat plants violate mad cow rules Banned brains, spinal cords may
still enter food supplyBy

Jon Bonné
MSNBC
Dec. 20, 2004

Parts of cattle supposedly banned under rules enacted after the nation's
first case of mad cow disease are making it into the human food chain,
according to the union that represents federal inspectors in meat plants.

The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, which represents
meat and poultry inspectors in federally regulated plants nationwide,
told the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a letter earlier this month
that body parts known as "specified risk materials" were being allowed
into the production chain.

The parts include the brains, skulls, spinal cords and lower intestines
of cattle older than 30 months. These body parts, thought to be most
likely to transmit the malformed proteins that cause bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, were banned from the human food
supply by USDA officials last January.

The union based its Dec. 8 complaint on reports from inspectors in
several states, though it declined to say which ones.

It said that the inspectors found heads and carcasses of some cows on
slaughter and processing lines that were not always correctly marked as
being older than 30 months. That age is the cutoff for rules governing
the use of higher-risk materials in human food; any animal older than 30
months must have any such parts removed before it can be cut up into meat.

But plant employees responsible for checking the age of cattle were not
always marking each older carcass. In the course of their regular work,
inspectors on the processing lines checked cattle heads themselves and
found some from older animals that had been passed through unmarked.

"We couldn't determine that every part out of there was from a cow under
30 months," Stan Painter, the union's chairman, told MSNBC.com. "There
was no way to determine which one was which."

The government and the beef industry frequently point to the SRM ban, as
it is known, as the single best measure to ensure that any meat possibly
infected by mad cow disease is kept out of the human food supply. The
ban was enacted this year after the first U.S. case of the disease was
detected in a Washington state dairy cow in December 2003.

Research has shown that most of the risk from infected animals lies in
neural tissue, such as the brain, not muscle meat. Mad cow disease has
been linked to a related human disease; both are always fatal.

USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said the ban was working, as were age checks
on cattle. "We feel very strongly that this is being done," Cohen said.
"It's being done correctly, and it's being verified by the people whose
job it is to do that."

Federal oversight for the age checks is usually performed by offline
inspectors  usually a more senior inspector at a plant who handles
larger issues such as food safety plans. They are directed to perform
spot checks on plant employees who perform the age checks using
paperwork as well as indicators such as the growth of the animals' teeth.

But current oversight would cover a small fraction of the total animals
that pass through any given plant  just 2 percent to 3 percent, by the
union's estimate.

In its letter, sent to the head of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service, the union also reported that some inspectors were "told not to
intervene" when they saw body parts of some older animals, sent for
packing with those of younger animals. This is despite export
requirements for certain parts that have been set by U.S. trading partners.

Specifically, the union said, kidneys from older animals were sent down
the line to be packed for the Mexican market, which prohibits them from
cows over 30 months. When the inspectors complained, Painter said, "The
agency basically told the inspectors, 'Don't worry about it.'"

Cohen said the age checks, which are usually performed before slaughter,
are meant to be handled by supervisors and veterinary medical officers.
"It is not the online inspectors whose role it is to determine" an
animal's age, Cohen said.

"The inspector on the line's role is to look for disease," he said. "If
an online inspector feels as though something is not being done they
should talk to their supervisors."

The online inspectors performed the checks on their own amid concerns
that older animals were not being marked as such, according to the union
and to an attorney familiar with the matter.

The cases referenced in the letter were apparently reported to
supervisors and to USDA district offices, Painter said, but the
inspectors were told, "Don't worry about it. That's the plant's
responsibility."

The union has not yet received a response, he added. Cohen said the
agency would have a response soon, and noted that the department's
inspector general is auditing how well plants comply with the ban.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6738982/

Greetings,

WITH all the lies and PR control the USDA et al do, it's no wonder consumer
confidence is high. IF the consumer knew the truth, i don't think it
wouild be
so high...

MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER Animal Proteins Prohibited in ...

... (216-119-132-29.ipset12.wt.net) Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING
LETTER Animal
Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Misbranded DEC. 9, 2004 Date:
December 21 ...
www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93699.html - 22k - Cached

-

Re: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER USA with a few ANTIBIOTICS ...

From: ninaB (70-56-246-11.clsp.qwest.net) Subject: Re: MAD COW FEED
BAN WARNING
LETTER USA with a few ANTIBIOTICS included November 18, 2004 Date:
December 8 ...
www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93639.html - 18k - Cached

-

ConsumerReports.org - Animal feed and the food supply, Beef ...

... FDA stated that compliance with the feed ban exceeded 99 ... from
five more firms for
violating the ban. ... January 2004--shortly after the first mad cow, of
Canadian ...
www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_
report.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=538203&ASSORTMENT%3C%3E... - 48k -
Cached

-

Forums - Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning Letters July 20, 2004 Usa

Forums > Books by PR Watch Staff > Mad Cow USA > Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning
Letters July 20, 2004 Usa. View Full Version : Mad Cow ...
www.prwatch.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-4569.html - 15k - Cached

-

Forums - Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning Letters July 20, 2004 Usa

July 28th, 2004, 04:14 PM, #1. Terry. Registered User. Join Date: Oct
2002. Location:
Bacliff, Texas. Posts: 354. Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning Letters July 20,
2004 ...
www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread. php?t=4551&goto=nextnewest - 44k -
Cached

-


Forums - Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning Letter Usa (2003)

May 20th, 2003, 06:50 PM, #1. Terry. Registered User. Join Date: Oct
2002. Location:
Bacliff, Texas. Posts: 354. Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning Letter Usa (2003). ...
www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2417 - 44k - Cached

-

Forums - View Single Post - Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning Letter Usa ...

Thread: Mad Cow Feed Ban Warning Letter Usa (2003). View Single
Post. May 20th,
2003, 06:50 PM, #1. Terry. Registered User. Join Date: Oct ...
www.prwatch.org/forum/ showpost.php?p=4106&postcount=1 - 17k -
Cached

-

ConsumerReports.org - Animal feed and the food supply, Beef ...

... FDA stated that compliance with the feed ban exceeded 99 ... from
five more firms for
violating the ban. ... January 2004--shortly after the first mad cow, of
Canadian ...
www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_
report.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=538203&ASSORTMENT%3C%3E... - 48k -
Cached



[PDF] GAO-02-183 Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban
...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML

... among other things, strengthen enforcement of the feed ban, develop
a ... concurred but
said that labeling and warning statements should ... GAO-02-183 Mad Cow
Disease ...

www.gao.gov/new.items/d02183.pdf - TSS


######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########


----------



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Statement By Dr. Ron DeHaven Administrator, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (BSE cohort was imported into the United States in February 2002)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:35:32 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


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




Statement By Dr. Ron DeHaven Administrator, Animal & Plant Health
Inspection Service

January 7, 2005

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture is working closely with the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency in their investigation of the Canadian dairy cow
that recently tested positive for BSE. This investigation is focused on
identifying birth cohorts - animals born in the same herd within one
year of the affected animal. The preliminary investigation has shown
that one of these birth cohorts was imported into the United States in
February 2002 for immediate slaughter. USDA, in collaboration with FDA,
is currently tracing the disposition of this animal and will provide
further details as the investigation evolves.

"Even at the height of BSE infection in Europe and the United Kingdom,
it was extremely rare to have more than one animal in the same herd
affected with BSE, therefore USDA believes it is extremely unlikely that
this imported cow would have been infected. Nevertheless, as was the
case in May 2003, when Canada had its first case of BSE and a small
number of birth cohorts were traced to the United States, USDA will make
every reasonable effort to obtain and provide information about the
disposition of this animal as well as any other birth cohorts that are
traced to the United States through Canada's epidemiological investigation.

"USDA and FDA have had a strong program in place for years to protect
the U.S. livestock population from BSE. Import controls on live cattle
and certain ruminant products from countries at high risk of BSE were
put in place more than 15 years ago. In 1997, both the United States and
Canada finalized animal feed bans, which are the single most important
safeguard to prevent the spread of the disease through the cattle
population. Public and animal health in the United States and Canada
have also been protected through ongoing surveillance efforts and
inspection of animals at slaughter for neurological signs, and now by
the removal of specified risk materials from the human food supply.

"USDA also continues the enhanced BSE surveillance program that began in
June 2003. To date, more than 170,000 targeted animals have been tested
for BSE. All samples have been negative."


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/01/0007.xml

TSS


######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Dr. Ron DeHaven DOING THE MAD COW TEXAS TWO-STEP AGAIN
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:41:56 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>


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

> * Dec. 30: CFIA begins definitive laboratory immunohistochemistry test 
> on sample in Winnipeg lab with results expects as early as Saturday 
> but more likely on Monday...



are they this stupid or do they just not know about the
atypical cases and the fact that immunohistochemistry
misses some of them ???

WHY no OIE WB done $$$

> Diagnosis:
> - The brain sample from the bullock tested positive to the ELISA-based
> bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) screening test, and was sent to
> the National Institute of Infectious Disease for confirmation and was
> subjected to Western blot analysis, histopathological examination and
> immunohistochemical examination. Based on these results, this case was
> concluded as an atypical BSE on 6 October 2003.
> - Result of Western blot analysis: PrPsc (scrapie-associated prion
> protein) was detected, the pattern of glycoform and relative protease
> resistance of PrPsc were different from what is known for BSE. Results
> of histopathological examination and immunohistochemical examination
> were negative.


http://www.prwatch.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3190.html



IF we look at # 8 and # 9 cows, they seem to be very similar to the USA
positives that turn out to be negative all the time;

>8. 6/10/2003 Holstein Steer 13/10/2001 23 mths
> No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP-
>

>9. 4/11/2003 Holstein Steer 13/1/2002
>21 mths No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP-
>

NOW, what does the USDA say about negative IHC ;

> John Clifford of the USDA said in a statement that the negative IHC
> results "makes us confident that the animal in question is indeed
> negative."


SURE it does, i suppose this is why they refused to do a WB$

snip...

> A U.S. veterinarian knowledgeable about mad cow tests told UPI that
> experts she has spoken with are "very, very skeptical about" the
> USDA's negative test result.
>
> The veterinarian, who requested anonymity because she feared
> repercussions for speaking out against the USDA, said the skepticism
> arose because the agency did not run another kind of mad cow test
> called a Western blot. The test sometimes can pick up positive cases
> that IHC misses and the agency has used it in the past to rule out
> suspect cases.



THUS, the infamous 'USA June 2004 ENHANCED BSE COVER-UP' continues, and
the agent continues to spread, expose and kill.

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-5245.html

Neuropathology: Confirmatory diagnosis of transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in cattle and sheep

snip...

TSE EU Community Reference Laboratory June 2004
TCiagnosis1.doc/MMS3
Inconclusive (histopathology):
Insufficient vacuolation of neuropil for unequivocal confirmation by 
above criteria.
Inconclusive (immunohistochemistry):
Presence of equivocal immunostaining confined to the TSE neuropil target 
areas.
Unsuitable (histopathology):
Inadequate submission due to either poor (or no) representation of 
target sites, or
the presence of severe confounding autolytic (or other artefactual) changes.
Lesions indicative of an alternative neuropathological diagnosis which 
prevent
assessment of TSE target sites for the presence or absence of specific 
spongiform
change.
Unsuitable (immunohistochemistry):
Absence of appropriate target sites. Technical failures. Failure of 
positive run
control.
Negative (histopathology):
Absence of characteristic neuropil vacuolation in sections where the 
target areas
can be confidently identified and assessed.
Lesions indicative of an alternative neuropathological diagnosis which 
still allow
adequate assessment of target areas.
Negative (immunohistochemistry):
Absence of immunostaining in target areas. Must be able to identify 
target sites.
Appropriate positive control.
TSE EU Community Reference Laboratory June 2004
TCiagnosis1.doc/MMS3

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/vla/science/documents/science-conf-crit1.pdf


DEFRA INVESTIGATES AN UNUSUAL SCRAPIE CASE

snip...

4. The VLA have applied several different methods to the sample to 
compare it to a wide range of previously detected scrapie cases, 
experimental BSE in sheep and an experimental strain of scrapie, termed 
CH1461. Two main methods have been used in this analysis:-

a. Western blot (WB)

This involves taking a sample of the brain and treating it with an 
enzyme proteinase k to destroy the normal prion protein (PrPC). The 
diseased form of the protein (PrPSc) is able to withstand this treatment 
and is then separated from other cellular material on a gel. A blot is 
taken of the gel and the PrPSc is visualised using specific antibodies.

b. Immunohistochemistry (IHC)

This involves taking thin slices of the brain, and by using special 
(antibody) markers to detect the PrPSc it is possible to see disease 
specific patterns of PrPSc distribution in the brain under a microscope.

The Western blot method found that the sample did not appear to resemble 
previously recognised cases of scrapie and, although there were some 
differences, some characteristics were similar to experimental BSE in 
sheep and also the experimental strain of sheep scrapie, CH1461. IHC 
found that it neither resembled previously recognised types of scrapie 
or experimental BSE in sheep

5. The tissue sample has now been analysed using a total of 5 different 
diagnostic methods claiming to be able to differentiate between scrapie 
and experimental BSE in sheep. Two were performed at the VLA and three 
were performed in other European laboratories.

snip...

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/040407b.htm

>Dear Terry,
>
>
>
>>"If the USDA is going to exclude from testing the animals
>>most likely to have the disease, that would seem to have a
>>very negative impact on the reliability of their conclusion,"
>>said Nestor, who has closely monitored the USDA's mad
>>cow surveillance program for several years.
>>
>>
>>
>many people among farmers and authorities are not at all
>interested in getting BSE cases, because BSE cases tend
>to be economically harmful. Of course they will do what they
>can in order to hide mad cows. Therefore you will always
>run into such manipulations as long as not all cattle have
>to become tested. In addition it needs a system for the
>identification and tracing each single cow in order to make
>sure that symptomatic cattle do not become excluded
>from testing.
>In Germany we had exactly the same systematic problems
>until 2000. The legislation offered the chance to hide
>putative BSE cases and so farmers and authorities used
>this chance to stay "BSE-free".
>
>
>
>>However, the state labs did not use the immunohistochemistry
>>test, which the USDA has called the "gold standard" for
>>diagnosing mad cow disease. Instead, the labs used a
>>different test called histopathology, which the USDA itself
>>does not use to confirm a case, opting instead for the more
>>sensitive IHC test.
>>
>>
>>
>Even immunohistochemistry (IHC) often fails to identify TSE
>cases which are easily detected by more sensitive and reliable
>methods like OIE western blot and BioRad rapid test. This
>is not only because sample preparation is not very easy
>and because you have to examine many different tissue
>samples. Even extremely experienced labs repeatedly failed
>to identify BSE and scrapie cases with this method. You
>can find several examples for that in my chronicle of the
>German BSE cases mainly in 2001.
>http://www.heynkes.de/default.htm or:
>http://www.schuett-abraham.de/bse2001-en.htm
>Especially with very young BSE cattle in Germany and Japan
>IHC failed to produce positive results.
>http://www.heynkes.de/pubmed/APRW.htm
>
>In Germany 38 scrapie cases were identified with the
>BioRad rapid test and within our national reference lab
>24 of them could not become confirmed with both Prionics
>tests. In addition the very experienced specialists in this
>lab were unable to verify 6 of this 38 cases with ICH even
>when they tried several different antibodies. They needed
>the OIE western blot in order to confirm this cases.
>http://www.heynkes.de/gelesen/aqgx.htm or:
>http://www.heynkes.de/pubmed/AQGX.htm
>
>
>
>
>>The histopathology test, unlike the IHC test, does not detect
>>prions -- misfolded proteins that serve as a marker for
>>infection and can be spotted early on in the course of the
>>illness. Rather, it screens for the microscopic holes in the
>>brain that are characteristic of advanced mad cow disease.
>>
>>
>>
>The real problem is not that BSE not always results in
>spongiform degeneration of the brain. Much more serious
>is the problem that there are so many possible reasons
>for vacuolation. I saw protocols of using histopathology
>for BSE testing. In this protocols a German Professor
>wrote that indeed he found holes in the brains, but could
>not decide if this holes were from BSE or autolysis or
>other diseases. He therefore did not confirm that this
>animals had BSE. This is the real reason why this
>method is so comfortable for authorities who are not
>interested to get BSE cases. In Germany this method
>work perfectly well and we had only a few imported BSE
>cases until a few companies introduced voluntary
>Prionics checks. Now you can see in my chronicle of
>the Germans BSE cases that with this strategy we
>just missed the peak of the German BSE epididemic.
>http://www.heynkes.de/dbsestat.htm
>We had the maximum of our registered cases during
>the first months of testing and declining numbers since
>then.
>
>
>
>
>>According to the USDA's Web site, histopathology proves
>>reliable only if the brain sample is removed soon after the
>>death of the animal. If there is too much of a delay, the Web
>>site states, it can be "very difficult to confirm a diagnosis
>>by histopathology" because the brain structures may have
>>begun to disintegrate.
>>
>>That is one reason the agency began using the IHC test -- it
>>can confirm a diagnosis if the brain has begun disintegrating
>>or been frozen for shipping.
>>
>>
>>
>Histopathology and ICH both are methods that are expensive
>and need a lot of time. It is therefore impossible to test
>slaughtered cattle without serious economical problems
>using this methods. This raises the question why authorities
>prefer this methods instead of using cheap, reliable, fast and
>sensitive rapid tests. The only reason that I can imagine is
>that they simply don't want to find BSE in their country.
>
>
>
>
>>Linda Detwiler, a former USDA veterinarian who oversaw the
>>agency's mad cow testing program, told UPI the histopathology
>>test probably is adequate for screening CNS cows. If they
>>have mad cow disease, she said, it would likely be an
>>advanced stage that should be obvious.
>>
>>
>>
>This is the sort of statements with which some "scientists"
>damage peoples trust in independant science. This may be
>good for her career, but not for the scientific community.
>
>
>
>
>>Other mad cow disease experts, however, said having a back-up
>>test such as IHC would be advisable, because histopathology
>>tests sometimes can miss evidence of infection.
>>
>>The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
>>offers similar recommendations in its protocol for conducing
>>a histopathology test. The protocol states that even if
>>histopathology is negative, "further sampling should be
>>undertaken" in cases "where clinical signs have strongly
>>suggested BSE" -- a criteria that includes all of the cows
>>tested at the state labs.
>>
>>
>>
>Recent research resulted in the understanding that there are
>several different presentations and strains of scrapie and BSE
>that make it very difficult to detect them with some of our
>normal methods. Benestad et al. were the first who saw
>the problem of protease K sensitive PrpSc in some cases
>of scrapie (http://www.heynkes.de/pubmed/APFF.htm).
>Teams in Japan, Italy and France found atypical cases of
>BSE in which there were extremely low levels of PrpSc
>within the obex, which is the part of the brain from which
>the probes for BSE tests are taken.
>http://www.heynkes.de/pubmed/APRW.htm
>http://www.heynkes.de/pubmed/APXV.htm
>http://www.heynkes.de/pubmed/APUA.htm
>
>And specialists of the French and German reference labs
>demonstrated how difficult it can be to identify scrapie
>cases: http://www.heynkes.de/pubmed/AQGX.htm or:
>http://www.heynkes.de/gelesen/aqgx.htm
>
>It is therefore necessary to take TSE testing somewhat
>more seriously. Histopathology is no useful method if
>you want to get reliable TSE diagnoses. IHC is clearly
>no method which can disproof positive results from
>BioRad ELISA. In fact it needs a combination of all
>available methods to do that. In addition recent results
>clearly demonstrated that we urgently need new methods
>for TSE testing. We especially need methods that do
>not need protease digestion in order to remove the
>normal prion protein PrpC, because there are TSE
>strains with protease sensitive PrpSc. IR-spectroscopy
>is one such method and there are several other new
>methods in the pipeline. But until such new methods are
>available, scrapie testing should be done with BioRad
>ELISA only and BSE screening should be done with
>one of the available rapid tests - not with histopathology
>or IHC.
>
>kind regards
>
>Roland

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-4361.html


continued...


----------



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

Current BSE diagnosis procedure

When BSE suspects are slaughtered, the primary test for diagnosis is 
histopathology 
.

>that is unless the USA finds a positive with the histopathology. then 
check again, and it's positive,
then finally they get a negative on the third try and call that 
confirmatory without doing OIE WB $$$<

This is the gold standard against which all the other tests have to be 
validated, and continues to be used to ensure that any variations in the 
pathology of BSE during the epidemic are detected. This is also a 
requirement of the agreed European Union Diagnostic Manual and of the 
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

snip...


Defras position

Currently in the UK, in addition to Western Blots and 
Immunohistochemistry, the Bio-Rad TeSeE test is used for the routine 
diagnosis of scrapie cases and suspect BSE cases born after 1996. Defra 
is also supporting the development and validation of the Immuno 
Capillary Electrophoresis (ICE) test.


http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/science-research/diagnos.html

> "We are working closely with Canadian officials as they conduct their 
> investigation into this situation." 


OH GOD, THIS is my major concern here $$$

PLEASE see full text pdf below and see why this administration
decided to not test mad cows that are stumbling and staggering in
TEXAS;

- Letter to USDA

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf 


http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf 



FDA STATEMENT ON THE COVER UP OF THIS COW ;

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html

still disgusted in Bacliff, Texas ...TSS


Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:

> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 
> #####################
>
> Canada gives test timeline for suspect mad cow
>
>
> WINNIPEG, Manitoba, Dec 30 (Reuters) - Canada's suspect mad cow was 
> first sampled by a veterinarian on an Alberta farm on Dec. 17, the 
> Canadian Food Inspection Agency said on Thursday.
>
> Following is a chronology of the case, as detailed by the CFIA during 
> a news conference on Thursday:
>
> * Dec. 17: Private veterinarian takes sample from 10-year-old cow on 
> an Alberta farm identified as a "downer" or nonambulatory animal -- 
> one of the groups considered at a higher risk for carrying mad cow 
> disease.
>
> * Dec. 23: Sample arrives at provincial laboratory in Edmonton, 
> Alberta, for testing.
>
> * Dec. 28: Lab runs duplicate tests from Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. 
> > on sample. Results are "non-negative."
>
> * Dec. 29: Lab repeats duplicate Bio-Rad tests, with same results.
>
> * Dec. 29: Lab forwards results to Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
> laboratory in Winnipeg, which runs duplicate rapid tests using kit 
> from Prionics AG. Tests are again positive.
>
> * Dec. 29: CFIA advises U.S. Department of Agriculture of preliminary 
> results before the USDA announces plans to relax a ban on imports of 
> young, live Canadian cattle.
>
> * Dec. 30: CFIA issues news release on preliminary results.
>
> * Dec. 30: CFIA begins definitive laboratory immunohistochemistry test 
> on sample in Winnipeg lab with results expects as early as Saturday 
> but more likely on Monday.
>
>
>
> 12/30/04 14:11 ET
>
> THIS is what we call protecting our borders?
>
> and citizens?
>
> just more BSeee $$$...TSS
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
>
>> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 
>> #####################
>>
>> Release No. 0528.04
>> Contact:
>> Office of Communications (202) 720 4623
>>
>> Statement By Dr. Ron DeHaven Administrator, Animal & Plant Health 
>> Inspection Service
>>
>> December 30, 2004
>>
>> "USDA is confident that the animal and public health measures that 
>> Canada has in place to prevent BSE, combined with existing U.S. 
>> domestic safeguards and additional safeguards announced yesterday 
>> provide the utmost protections to U.S. consumers and livestock.
>>
>> "Last night Canada announced the finding of a "suspect" animal, which 
>> is their term for inconclusive. If this animal proves to be positive, 
>> it would not alter the implementation of the U.S. rule announced 
>> yesterday that recognizes Canada as a Minimal-Risk Region. In the 
>> extensive risk analysis conducted as part of the rule making, we 
>> considered the possibility of additional cases of BSE in Canada. 
>> Because of the mitigation measures that Canada has in place, we 
>> continue to believe the risk is minimal.
>>
>> "When Canadian ruminants and ruminant products are presented for 
>> importation into the United States, they become subject to domestic 
>> safeguards as well. Beef imports that have already undergone Canadian 
>> inspection are also subject to re-inspection at ports of entry by the 
>> USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure only 
>> eligible products are imported
>>
>> "We are working closely with Canadian officials as they conduct their 
>> investigation into this situation."
>>
>> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/3/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2004%2F12%2F0528.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM 
>>
>>
>> Greetings list members,
>>
>> IF you remember correctly, i posted this ;
>>
>> Subject: Re: USDA/APHIS JUNE 2004 'ENHANCED' BSE/TSE COVER UP UPDATE 
>> DECEMBER 19, 2004 USA
>> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:27:06 -0600
>> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
>>
>>
>> BSE-L
>>
>> snip...
>>
>>>
>>> OH, i did ask Bio-Rad about this with NO reply to date;
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs
>>> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
>>> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 
>>> To: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Susan and Bio-Rad,
>>>
>>> Happy Holidays!
>>>
>>> I wish to ask a question about Bio-Rad and USDA BSE/TSE testing
>>> and there inconclusive. IS the Bio-Rad test for BSE/TSE that 
>>> complicated,
>>> or is there most likely some human error we are seeing here?
>>>
>>> HOW can Japan have 2 positive cows with
>>> No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP- ,
>>> BUT in the USA, these cows are considered 'negative'?
>>>
>>> IS there more politics working here than science in the USA?
>>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: USDA: More mad cow testing will demonstrate beef's safety
>>> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:26:19 -0600
>>> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
>>> snip...end
>>>
>>>
>>> Experts doubt USDA's mad cow results
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> snip...END
>>
>> WELL, someone did call me from Bio-Rad about this,
>> however it was not Susan Berg.
>> but i had to just about take a blood oath not to reveal
>> there name. IN fact they did not want me to even mention
>> this, but i feel it is much much to important. I have omitted
>> any I.D. of this person, but thought I must document this ;
>>
>> Bio-Rad, TSS phone conversation 12/28/04
>>
>> Finally spoke with ;
>>
>>
>> Bio-Rad Laboratories
>> 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
>> Hercules, CA 94547
>> Ph: 510-741-6720
>> Fax: 510-741-5630
>> Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>>
>> at approx. 14:00 hours 12/28/04, I had a very pleasant
>> phone conversation with XXXX XXXXX about the USDA
>> and the inconclusive BSE testing problems they seem
>> to keep having. X was very very cautious as to speak
>> directly about USDA and it's policy of not using WB.
>> X was very concerned as a Bio-Rad official of retaliation
>> of some sort. X would only speak of what other countries
>> do, and that i should take that as an answer. I told X
>> I understood that it was a very loaded question and X
>> agreed several times over and even said a political one.
>>
>> my question;
>>
>> Does Bio-Rad believe USDA's final determination of False positive, 
>> without WB, and considering the new
>> atypical TSEs not showing positive with -IHC and -HP ???
>>
>> ask if i was a reporter. i said no, i was with CJD Watch
>> and that i had lost my mother to hvCJD. X did not
>> want any of this recorded or repeated.
>>
>> again, very nervous, will not answer directly about USDA for fear of 
>> retaliation, but again said X tell
>> me what other countries are doing and finding, and that
>> i should take it from there.
>> "very difficult to answer"
>>
>> "very political"
>>
>> "very loaded question"
>>
>> outside USA and Canada, they use many different confirmatory tech. in 
>> house WB, SAF, along with
>> IHC, HP, several times etc. you should see at several
>> talks meetings (TSE) of late Paris Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT 
>> IS NEGATIVE. again, look what
>> the rest of the world is doing.
>> said something about Dr. Houston stating;
>> any screening assay, always a chance for human
>> error. but with so many errors (i am assuming
>> X meant inconclusive), why are there no investigations, just false 
>> positives?
>> said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but 
>> were positive''. ...
>>
>>
>> TSS
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Your questions
>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
>> From: To: [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Terry:
>>
>> ............................................snip Let me know your 
>> phone number so I can talk to you about the Bio-Rad BSE test.
>> Thank you
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Bio-Rad Laboratories
>> 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
>> Hercules, CA 94547
>> Ph: 510-741-6720
>> Fax: 510-741-5630
>> Email: =================================
>>
>>
>> END...TSS
>>
>>
>> ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html 
>> ##########
>>


----------



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

Latest Information (as of January 11, 2005 - 14:00 EST)

*

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) today announced that
Canada's national surveillance program has detected bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an Alberta beef cow
<http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2005/20050111e.shtml>
just under seven years of age. As part of its surveillance
program, the CFIA has control of the carcass. No part of the
animal has entered the human food or animal feed systems.

*

The CFIA is investigating what the animal may have been fed early
in its life and the source of the feed. The infected animal was
born in March 1998, and the farm of origin has been confirmed.
Based on preliminary information, feed produced prior to the
introduction of the 1997 feed ban in Canada remains the most
likely source of infection in this animal.

*

This current investigation is independent of the BSE investigation
on the case which was confirmed on January 2, 2005.

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


NEW CASE OF BSE DETECTED

OTTAWA, January 11, 2005 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) today announced that Canada's national surveillance program has detected bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an Alberta beef cow just under seven years of age. As part of its surveillance program, the CFIA has control of the carcass. No part of the animal has entered the human food or animal feed systems.

Public health remains protected through the removal of specified risk material (SRM) from all animals slaughtered for human food. SRM are tissues that, in infected animals, contain the BSE agent. This measure is internationally recognized as the most effective public health measure against BSE.

The CFIA is investigating what the animal may have been fed early in its life and the source of the feed. The infected animal was born in March 1998, and the farm of origin has been confirmed. Based on preliminary information, feed produced prior to the introduction of the 1997 feed ban in Canada remains the most likely source of infection in this animal.

The infected animal was detected through the recently enhanced national surveillance program. Additional cases may be found as testing of high-risk cattle continues. In 2004, the Government of Canada tested over 22,000 animals.

Canada's science-based BSE safeguards to protect public and animal health have been designed with the understanding that BSE is potentially present in a small and declining number of animals. This includes animals born before and shortly after the 1997 feed ban. The Government of Canada continues to believe that the ruminant to ruminant feed ban introduced in 1997 has limited the spread of BSE and remains effective

Initial testing on the animal was conducted by Alberta authorities. Results were inconclusive and samples were then sent to the Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health in Winnipeg. The definitive diagnosis was made today using the internationally recognized "gold standard" test for BSE.

Since the surveillance program was enhanced in January 2004, Canada has tested more than 24,000 high-risk cattle. This targeted approach has detected an additional two BSE positive cattle. These findings demonstrate the shared commitment of cattle producers, industry and governments to responsibly search for any remaining cases of BSE.

This current investigation is independent of the BSE investigation on the case which was confirmed on January 2, 2005.

The CFIA will hold a news conference today, January 11, 2005, at 2:00 EST. A media advisory has been issued.

-30-

For information:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Media Relations
(613) 228-6682

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2005/20050111e.shtml

Release No. 0011.05

Statement by Dr. Ron DeHaven,Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
January 11, 2005


"Today, Canada announced that a six year, nine month old cow has tested positive for BSE. We remain confident that the animal and public health measures that Canada has in place to prevent BSE, combined with existing U.S. domestic safeguards, provide the utmost protections to U.S. consumers and livestock. 
"However, since this animal was born shortly after the implementation of Canadaâ?Ts feed ban and to determine if there are any potential links among the positive animals, we will expedite sending a technical team to Canada to evaluate the circumstances surrounding these recent finds. We appreciate Canadaâ?Ts willingness to cooperate and assist us in these efforts. We will continue our ongoing work with Canadian officials in their epidemiological investigations to determine the facts of these cases. 
"As always, protection of public and animal health is our top priority. The result of our investigation and analysis will be used to evaluate appropriate next steps in regard to the minimal risk rule published last week."
#

USDA News
[email protected]
202 720-4623

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F01%2F0011.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

Docket No, 04-047-l Regulatory Identification No. (RIN) 091O-AF46 NEW BSE SAFEGUARDS (comment submission)

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

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


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


Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]

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

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



TSS


----------



## terry (Sep 13, 2002)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: BSE CANADA AND NORTH AMERICA Latest Information (as of January 12, 2005 -15:00 EST)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:44:55 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


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

Canadian Food Inspection Agency - BSE in North America - Latest Information Page 1 of 26


Canadian Food Inspection Agency
BSE in North America

Latest Information
Latest Information (as of January 12, 2005 -15:00 EST)

" Case 2 (Confirmed January 2, 2005)

o Nine animals from Case 2's birth cohort have been euthanized and tested negative

for BSE.

o Ongoing traceouts have confirmed that an additional three birth cohort animals
were exported to the United States. American authorities have been notified.

. Case 3 (Confirmed January 11, 2005)

o Based on current information, we have identified 22 cattle from Case 3's birth
cohort. Additional traceouts are underway

. CFIA officials are preparing to undertake a review of Canada's feed ban. This process will
examine the effectiveness of industry's compliance with the ban in limiting the spread of
BSE. The review will include participation from international animal health and feed
experts.

" An extensive international outreach campaign is underway to reinforce awareness and
understanding of the science-based measures Canada has in place to protect human and
animal health from BSE.

o Canadian officials have been dispatched to China and will be travelling to Hong
Kong, Japan and Taiwan over the coming week.

o Canada's Chief Veterinary Officer is currently in Washington for technical
discussions with USDA and FDA officials.

o Minister Mitchell will travel to Mexico next week and the United States soon after to
meet with his counterparts.

o Heads of Missions will be fully briefed this week so they can serve as effective
advocates of Canada's BSE safeguards.

Latest Information (as of January 11, 2005 -14:00 EST)

" The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) today announced that Canada's national
surveillance program has detected bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an Alberta
beef cow just under seven years of age. As part of its surveillance program, the CFIA has
control of the carcass. No part of the animal has entered the human food or animal feed
systems.

" The CFIA is investigating what the animal may have been fed early in its life and the

source of the feed. The infected animal was born in March 1998, and the farm of origin has
been confirmed. Based on preliminary information, feed produced prior to the introduction
of the 1997 feed ban in Canada remains the most likely source of infection in this animal.

. This current investigation is independent of the BSE investigation on the case which was
confirmed on January 2, 2005.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/situatione.shtml 1/13/2005 TSS

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Possible vCJD case in California remains a mystery $$$ USA mad cow/cjd ENHANCED cover-up continues
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:57:56 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]


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

Possible vCJD case in California remains a mystery

by Pete Hisey on 1/13/05 for 
Meatingplace.com



The death of Patrick Hicks, 49, in Colton, Calif., last November may 
have been the state's first case of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, 
the human form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, according to a 
United Press International report. But since frozen brain samples were 
not retained, no one will ever know for sure.

"Clinically, the case did look like variant CJD, no question about 
that," said Dr. Ron Bailey of Riverside Medical Center, who treated 
Hicks. However, officials from the National Prion Disease Pathology 
Surveillance Center in Cleveland say that Hicks died of sporadic CJD.

Hicks' brain was removed before cremation by a company called 
1-800-Autopsy, who fixed it in formalin, making it impossible to use 
genetic tests to determine whether the disease was vCJD, which is caused 
by exposure to BSE-infected bovine products, or sporadic CJD, which 
occurs at random.

http://www.meatingplace.com/DailyNews/init.asp?iID=13677

> Possible vCJD case in California remains a mystery


NO mystery at all, just another part of the USDA et al
''USDA ET AL ENHANCED JUNE 2004 BSE/TSE COVER-UP''

REMINDS me of the TEXAS mad cow cover-up;


Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html

May 13, 2004

Failure To Test Staggering Cow May Reflect Wider Problems
Rep. Waxman raises concerns that the recent failure of USDA to test an
impaired cow for BSE may not be an isolated incident, citing the failure
of USDA to monitor whether cows condemned for central nervous system
symptoms are actually tested for mad cow disease.

- Letter to USDA

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf 


http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_food_usda_mad_cow_may_13_let.pdf 



YEP, deep throat told me long long ago, it will be all sporadic CJD
in the USA and no BSE/TSE cases will be documented in the USA.

IT'S simply not about science anymore folks.

POLITICS and SAVE THE INDUSTRY AT ALL COST,
including the death of maybe YOUR MOTHER, FATHER,
BROTHER, SISTER, AUNT, UNCLE or maybe just a friend...

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 23:27:10 +0000 (GMT)
From:
Subject: confidential
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." 


Okay, you need to know. You don't need to pass it on
as nothing will come of it and there is not a damned
thing anyone can do about it. Don't even hint at it
as it will be denied and laughed at..........
USDA is gonna do as little as possible until there is
actually a human case in the USA of the
nvcjd........if you want to move this thing along and
shake the earth....then we gotta get the victims
families to make sure whoever is doing the autopsy is
credible, trustworthy, and a saint with the courage of
Joan of Arc........I am not kidding!!!!
so, unless we get a human death from EXACTLY the same
form with EXACTLY the same histopath lesions as seen
in the UK nvcjd........forget any action........it is
ALL gonna be sporadic!!!

And, if there is a case.......there is gonna be every
effort to link it to international travel,
international food, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. They
will go so far as to find out if a sex partner had
ever traveled to the UK/europe, etc. etc. ....
It is gonna be a long, lonely, dangerous twisted
journey to the truth. They have all the cards, all
the money, and are willing to threaten and carry out
those threats....and this may be their biggest
downfall.


TSS

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########


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

USDA interviews mad cow whistleblower

Published 1/6/2005 2:55 PM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 (UPI) -- U.S. Agriculture officials Thursday questioned a meat inspector who alleged mad cow disease safeguards were violated, United Press International was told.

Inspector Charles Painter was interviewed at Department of Agriculture headquarters in Washington about his refusal to disclose the names of plants and other inspectors involved in the allegations, Patty Lovera of the advocacy group Public Citizen told UPI.

Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, notified USDA officials in December that information he had indicated brain and other risky materials from cows 30 months and older might be entering the food supply. Humans can contract a fatal brain illness from consuming beef products contaminated with mad cow.

After Painter made his concerns known to the media, a USDA official came to his house and asked him for the names of inspectors involved and plants where the infractions allegedly occurred, Food Chemical News reported.

Painter refused and said he purposefully was kept ignorant of the specifics so he could not incriminate other inspectors.

Three days later, on Dec. 26, 2004, Painter received a notice from the agency informing him he was being investigated for personnel misconduct.

USDA did not immediately return a phone call from UPI.

Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050106-023014-8301r


USDA broadens mad cow inquiry

Published 1/11/2005 1:25 PM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- U.S. Agriculture officials Tuesday questioned seven meat inspectors about charges mad cow safeguards were breached, United Press International was told.

The presidents of the seven regional councils of the inspectors union were called to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters in Washington, said Patty Lovera of the watchdog group Public Citizen.

The USDA last week questioned Charles Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, about allegations he made that cow brains and other risky materials that could carry mad cow disease might be entering the food supply in violation of agency policy.

Humans can contract a fatal brain illness from consuming mad cow-contaminated products.

USDA officials asked Painter to name the inspectors and plants involved, Lovera said. She and other consumer advocates are concerned the USDA is more interested in punishing the inspectors for speaking out rather than closing loopholes in their policy. The agency has not issued new instructions to inspectors or made changes to its policy, Lovera noted.

USDA did not immediately return a phone call.

Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050111-011501-2775r

WHAT this says, IF the honest meat inspectors come forward,
there will be severe ramifications for coming forward with the truth,
thus the agent continues to spread, expose and kill...

of course, not here in the USA. everything is ok, mad cow not here,
cause GW says so...

TSS

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########


----------

