Saturday, April 21, 2012

HISD seeks refund on burgers with 'pink slime'








HISD seeks refund on burgers with 'pink slime'


School district claims company used lean finely textured beef in patties


Published On: Apr 20 2012 04:53:48 PM CDT


HOUSTON - Houston Independent School District officials want a refund for beef patties they say were made with "pink slime," a product the district said it vowed not to serve to children.


Officials with the district said they purchased over 14,000 cases of quarter-pound charbroiled beef patties from California-based Don Lee Farms at a cost of over $500,000.


It was later discovered that the patties were made with the cheaper grade of beef that contained finely textured beef, officials said.


Officials with HISD said their bid specifications prohibit any variety meats, filler or extenders in the foods served in the district's cafeterias.


HISD's legal office said, in a letter to Don Lee Farms, that the beef product is not acceptable.


"This constitutes a breach of agreement, and demand is made for immediate pickup of the product and refund of the purchase price," the letter went on to say.


So far, there has been no word of an agreement to refund the money, and district officials said they're considering further legal action.


Lean, finely textured beef is made from meat trimmings that are treated with ammonium hydroxide to eliminate bacteria. It was recently dubbed "pink slime," and that had meat industry officials fighting back with a "dude, it's beef" campaign.


The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not require food suppliers to list the product as an ingredient.




HISD says youngsters ate pink slime burgers after all, may sue vendor


HISD says youngsters ate pink slime burgers after all, may sue vendor


The controversial product lean, finely textured beef -- AKA 'pink slime' -- was indeed served to HISD students in burgers purchased from a California vendor, the district admitted Friday.




Posted: Saturday, April 21, 2012 9:08 am


HISD says youngsters ate pink slime burgers after all, may sue vendorEXAMINER NEWSHouston Community Newspapers


After proudly proclaiming last month that an investigation had shown its hamburgers to be pink slime-free, Houston ISD admitted late Friday that it had purchased and served most of 14,080 cases of patties with the substance and may have to sue the vendor for breach of contract.


HISD had purchased the quarter-pound charbroiled beef patties from Don Lee Farms in California, totaling $523,776, and had used all but 1,045 cases of the product, which contained lean, finely textured beef treated with ammonium hydroxide -- also known as pink slime.


“LFTB is not an acceptable variety meat, filler, or extender for a product to be served to school children,” HISD’s legal office wrote in a demand letter mailed to Don Lee Farms on April 10. “This constitutes a breach of the agreement and demand is made for immediate pickup of the product and refund of the purchase price.”


So far, HISD says, the company has not responded to its demand, and the district is considering additional legal action.


The California vendor is one of three supplying burgers to the district; the other two are in Texas. In March, the district said it had asked all three companies if they used LFTB and was told they did not.


HISD reiterated in a news release Friday that its bid specifications prohibit “variety meats, filler or extenders,” and said LFTB “is a cheaper and inferior grade of beef than the district intended to serve to its children.”


The USDA has approved LFTB as an additive, and federal regulations do not require that it be listed as an ingredient.


A national crusade started by HISD parent and food oversight committee member Bettina Elias Siegel has made “pink slime” a rallying point for children’s nutrition and led to grocery chains, restaurants and school districts stopping the use of the product.









LFTB PINK SLIME MSM MRM BSE TSE PRION


AMMONIATED BEEF DOES NOT KILL THE MAD COW DISEASE BSE TSE PRION AGENT.


YOU CANNOT COOK MAD COW DISEASE BSE TSE PRION AGENT OUT OF BEEF.


Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM)


Mechanically separated meat is a paste-like and batter-like meat product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible meat, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue.


In 1982, a final rule published by FSIS on mechanically separated meat said it was safe and established a standard of identity for the food product. Some restrictions were made on how much can be used and the type of products in which it can be used. These restrictions were based on concerns for limited intake of certain components in MSM, like calcium. Due to FSIS regulations enacted in 2004 to protect consumers against Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, mechanically separated beef is considered inedible and is prohibited for use as human food. It is not permitted in hot dogs or any other processed product. Mechanically separated pork is permitted and must be labeled as "mechanically separated pork" in the ingredients statement. Hot dogs can contain no more than 20% mechanically separated pork.




Pink slime, also known as lean finely textured beef (LFTB),[2] boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT),[3] is a beef-based food additive that may be added to ground beef and beef-based processed meats as an inexpensive filler.[4][5] It consists of finely ground beef scraps, sinew, fat, and connective tissue which have been mechanically removed in a heated centrifuge at 100°F (38°C)[6] from the fat into liquid fat and a protein paste.[7][8] The recovered material is processed, heated, and treated with ammonia gas[1] or citric acid to kill E. coli, salmonella, and other bacteria. It is finely ground, compressed into blocks and flash frozen for use as an additive to beef products.[9][10] The term pink slime was coined in 2002 by Gerald Zirnstein, who at that time was a microbiologist for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service,[7] but some state officials have objected to the nickname, saying that "lean, finely textured beef is the proper name."[11]


In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers, but can constitute up to 15% of ground beef without additional labeling,[9] and can also be added to other meat products such as beef-based processed meats.[9] Prior to the invention of the disinfection process, beef scraps could only be sold as pet food or as an ingredient for cooking oil.[4]


Widespread public attention was drawn to the product in March 2012 by a series of reports at ABC News, which reported at that time that 70 percent of ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contained the product.[12] Subsequently, many grocery stores and supermarkets, including the nation's three largest chains, announced that they would no longer sell products containing the additive.[13] Manufacturer Beef Products Inc. (BPI) and meat industry organizations have countered the public concern by stating that the additive is in fact beef, and have begun using the slogan "beef is beef".[5][9][14][15]


Pink slime is not permitted in Canada. In a statement, Health Canada stated that: "Ammonia is not permitted in Canada to be used in ground beef or meats during their production." Such products also may not be imported, as Canadian law requires that imported meat products meet the same standards and requirements as domestic meat.[16][17] Canada does allow Finely Textured Meat to be "used in the preparation of ground meat" and "identified as ground meat" under certain conditions.[18] Pink slime also does not meet the legal requirements for sale in the United Kingdom.[19] Pink slime has also been banned in the European Union.[20]






Subject: 2002 USA MAD COW SRM/MRMS CNS TISSUES 76 % (26 of 34) had POSITIVE laboratory results for CNS tissues


Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:17:22 –0600


From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."


To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


CC: bloodcjd@yahoogroups.com


Food Safety and Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250-3700 News Release


Congressional and Public Affairs (202) 720-9113; FAX: (202) 690-0460 Andrea McNally USDA Begins Sampling Program for Advanced Meat Recovery Systems


WASHINGTON, March 3, 2003--The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service today announced a regulatory sampling program to ensure beef products derived from Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) systems are accurately labeled.


AMR is a technology that removes muscle tissue from beef carcasses without breaking bones. When produced properly, AMR product can be labeled as "meat." Previously, FSIS inspectors took regulatory samples of AMR product if they believed that an establishment was not completely removing spinal cord tissue. Products labeled as "meat" found to contain spinal cord tissue are considered misbranded under FSIS policy.


FSIS today began a routine regulatory sampling of beef products from AMR systems as outlined in a December directive. FSIS' new sampling program requires inspectors to test beef product from AMR systems on a routine basis to verify that spinal cord tissue is not present. If spinal cord tissue is detected, action will be taken to relabel held product or recall distributed product from commerce. Inspection personnel also will conduct follow-up sampling to verify that the establishment has taken appropriate corrective action. AMR production will not be allowed to resume until FSIS determines that those corrective actions have been successful.


A 2002 survey of 34 establishments producing beef products from AMR systems to determine the frequency that products contained central nervous system tissue, including spinal cord tissue, showed that approximately 35 percent of the final product samples tested positive for central nervous system (spinal cord) and central nervous system-associated tissues.


The survey results provide FSIS with the necessary data to proceed with rulemaking on AMR systems that will include specifications for the removal of central nervous system and associated tissues. FSIS will seek public comment on an existing AMR proposed rule before it is finalized.


More information on AMR systems and FSIS' new sampling program can be accessed online at www.fsis.usda.gov/


NOTE: Access news releases and other information at the FSIS web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov.


Related Documents


* The Follow-up to the Beef AMR Product Survey of 2002: Follow-up Results and Actions for the Elimination of CNS (Spinal Cord) Tissues from AMR Products Derived from Beef Vertebrae (6 pp. PDF) * Analysis of 2002 FSIS Bovine AMR Products Survey Results (55 pp., PDF) * Backgrounder: Revised Directive for Advanced Meat Recovery Systems, December 2002


*Note: To read and print a PDF file, you must have the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader installed on your PC. You can download a version suitable for your system, free of charge, from the Adobe Home Page. Adobe also provides tools and information to help make Adobe PDF files accessible to users with visual disabilities at http://access.adobe.com.


banner


For Further Information, Contact: FSIS Congressional and Public Affairs Staff Phone: (202) 720-9113 Fax: (202) 690-0460




The Follow-up to the Beef AMR Product Survey of 2002: Follow-up Results and Actions for the Elimination of CNS (Spinal Cord) Tissues from AMR Products Derived from Beef Vertebrae Introduction: Advanced Meat/Bone Separation and Meat Recovery (AMR) systems are designed to remove the attached skeletal muscle tissue from livestock bones without breaking or crushing the bones. This machinery separates meat by scraping, shaving, or pulling the muscle tissue away from the bone. However, unlike traditional mechanical separation, AMR machinery cannot break, grind, crush or pulverize bones to recover muscle tissue. Bones must emerge essentially intact and in natural physical conformation. The AMR process is used to produce meat from beef and pork carcasses. FSIS policy gives a clear definition of "meat" that does not include spinal cord tissues. Therefore, meat products containing spinal cord tissues are misbranded and possibly adulterated. In December 2002, FSIS issued a directive requiring that routine regulatory samples be taken in beef plants using AMR systems with vertebral columns to ensure that spinal cord tissues are not present in the AMR products. The following survey was conducted in order to determine a baseline for the presence of spinal cord tissues in AMR products derived from beef vertebral columns. The results will guide FSIS in determining whether establishments are preventing spinal cord tissues from being mixed with beef. USDA’s definition of meat was amended in December 1994 to include products from advanced meat/bone separation and meat recovery systems. Meat derived from this method is to be comparable in texture and composition to meat trimmings and similar to hand-deboned products so it does not require special labeling. AMR product is labeled as "meat" on product labeling (i.e., "beef," "pork," "beef trimmings," etc.). Since spinal cord tissues falls outside the definition of "meat," product produced using AMR systems cannot contain spinal cord tissues. Before the directive was issued in December 2002, FSIS inspectors used visual inspection of an establishment’s entire AMR system operation to conduct regulatory sampling of AMR products. Inspectors would take regulatory samples of AMR products when they believed that the establishment was not adequately removing the spinal cord. The 2002 directive requires them to take routine regulatory samples to ensure that spinal cord is being properly removed. The directive specifically requires inspection personnel to notify the establishment at the time they take a sample, allowing the establishment to hold the product being tested. If the test identifies the presence of spinal cord tissues, then inspection personnel will withhold marks of inspection from the establishment's AMR product and tag the AMR system itself, meaning neither the product nor the equipment can be used until satisfactory corrective action has been taken. 1 If the establishment has distributed the sampled product, then FSIS will request a voluntary recall on the basis that the product is misbranded. If the establishment has not distributed the sampled product, then inspection personnel will verify any action taken to correct the problem, such as re-labeling the product to meet FSIS regulations for mechanically separated product or diverting it into rendering. Inspection personnel will conduct follow-up sampling to verify that the establishment has taken appropriate corrective action. AMR production will not be allowed to resume until FSIS determines that corrective actions have been successful. Findings:


There was a wide range of results in the recently conducted survey. Some plants produced AMR products 100% free of central nervous system (CNS) tissues. Others, however, clearly had a problem keeping CNS (spinal cord) tissues out of their AMR products.


In fact, about 24 percent (8 of 34) of the establishments tested in the AMR Survey of 2002 had negative laboratory results for CNS tissues in their final beef AMR products.


However, about 76 percent (26 of 34) of the establishments tested in the AMR Survey of 2002 had positive laboratory results for CNS tissues in their final beef AMR products. The AMR products were derived from beef vertebra, using 42 AMR systems in 34 establishments. There were 394 AMR product samples tested. The within-establishment prevalence of AMR samples testing positive for CNS tissues ranged from 16.7 percent (one positive of six tested samples) to 75 percent (three positive of four tested samples). Additional details are in the draft of the final report of the AMR Survey of 2002. The summary of the follow-up results of the AMR Survey of 2002 is as follows:


1. 100 percent (26 of 26) of the IICs of establishments with CNS positive results in the AMR Survey of 2002 were asked one or more times by their respective District Office Inspection Coordinator (IC) to perform unscheduled performance-based inspection system (PBIS) procedure code 04A03. This PBIS procedure code is for verification of the AMR process that produces AMR products derived from meat trimmings and bones (vertebral and nonvertebral) containing tags of skeletal muscle. This is the established protocol of the AMR Survey for within-establishment follow-up of AMR survey samples that tested positive to CNS tissues.


2. About 88 percent (23 of 26) of the establishments with CNS positive results in the AMR Survey of 2002 submitted 68 follow-up AMR samples for PBIS procedure code 04A03 verification. The distribution of submitted follow-up AMR samples by establishments is: 10 establishments submitted 1 follow-up sample 2 6 establishments submitted 2 follow-up samples 5 establishments submitted 3 follow-up samples 1 establishment submitted 12 follow-up samples 1 establishment submitted 19 follow-up samples


3. About 33 percent (22 of 67 tested) of the follow-up AMR samples were positive for CNS tissues. One AMR sample was discarded for being "out of condition" or putrefied on arrival at the laboratory.


4. About 35 percent (8 of 23) of the establishments submitting follow-up AMR samples tested positive for CNS tissues in their AMR follow-up samples.


5. Follow-up AMR samples are still being submitted to the FSIS Eastern Laboratory (Athens, Georgia).


6. For calendar year 2002 (of non-compliance reports (NRs) received for analysis), 18 NRs were written for non-compliant AMR products (submitted regulatory samples) derived from beef vertebrae that tested positive for CNS tissues independent of the survey. All of the received NRs referenced PBIS procedure code 04A03, except three NRs that referenced respectively PBIS procedure codes 03C02, 04B01, and 04B03. For calendar year 2002 (of NRs received for analysis), one NR was written for non-compliance on verification of PBIS procedure code 04A03 for the production of AMR products derived from beef vertebrae. Visible spinal cord was discovered in the AMR system. Regulatory AMR samples were not submitted. In summary, for calendar year 2002 (of NRs received for analysis), seven establishments received 19 NRs: one establishment received six NRs, one establishment received five NRs, one establishment received three NRs, one establishment received two NRs, and three establishments received one NR each. One establishment should have had a NR written for non-compliant AMR product that tested positive for CNS (spinal cord) tissues. About 92 percent (24 of 26) of the establishments sent their non-compliant (for the presence of CNS (spinal cord) tissues) AMR products to inedible rendering or condemned the non-compliant AMR products.


7. For calendar year 2002, establishments have taken numerous actions for increasing the probability of eliminating CNS tissues from their AMR products.


• Two establishments discontinued their use of functioning AMR equipment.


• One establishment discontinued its use of AMR equipment when it was damaged by a piece of metal and then not repaired.


• Establishment employees were trained and re-trained to remove spinal cords from vertebral columns. 3


• Mis-split vertebral columns were identified with food-safe colored dye (typically blue food dye) for removal of entrapped spinal cord in the vertebral column before being used to produce AMR products, or for elimination of the entire vertebral column from the AMR process.


• Hand-operated tools were added, i.e., scrapers to remove spinal cord and surrounding materials of the spinal canal, and various power-driven cutters to groove the spinal canal to remove any spinal cord and surrounding material. The removed materials typically were collected by vacuum to an enclosed vessel. Several types of power-driven cutters were used. One power-driven tool was a Jarvis saw with vacuum (Jarvis Products Corporation, Middletown, CT) that works as a mechanically cutting router to remove tissues over the length of the opened vertebral canal of the vertebral columns. Another similar power-driven tool was a Whizard trimmer (Bettcher Industries, Inc., Vermilion, OH).


• Additional establishment labor was employed to check vertebral columns for the presence of spinal cord, and then to remove the spinal cord tissues or discard the vertebral column. In some establishments, the spinal cord and its covering or sheath (dura mater) were removed. • In one establishment, a wash station was installed prior to the carcass wash station, for additional removal of the spinal cord and sheath from the vertebral column.


• One establishment installed a device that stabilized or held the hanging split carcass (half) while the spinal cord was removed from its spinal canal.


• An establishment implemented a “closer” inspection for the removal of spinal cord on the kill floor. (Note: later the establishment eliminated a CCP, because of several HACCP CCP deficiencies to limit (zero tolerance) spinal cord tissues in vertebrae located at the beginning of the AMR system!).


• Another establishment established a HACCP CCP with a zero tolerance limit of spinal cord tissues in the spinal canal of the carcass half (located on the kill floor).


• An establishment installed rapid testing equipment to test for the presence of CNS tissues in their AMR products. An AMR products testing program was implemented. Further, private laboratory testing for the presence of CNS tissues was increased after finding positive results for the presence of CNS tissues. 4 8.


For calendar year 2002, about 92 percent (24 of 26) of the establishments sent their non-compliant (for the presence of CNS (spinal cord) tissues) AMR products to inedible rendering or condemned the non-compliant AMR products. The remaining 8 percent (2 of 26) of the establishments are known to have relabeled some of their non-compliant AMR products derived from beef vertebrae as mechanically separated beef (MS(Beef). The AMR products were non-compliant because the AMR products tested positive for spinal cord (CNS) tissues. The MS (Beef) was sold for further processing (i.e., chili). It is permissible to re-label if the conditions of the regulatory requirements are met and that spinal cord is expected as a component of this material. It was assumed that the conditions were met, based on actions of inspection program personnel that referenced FSIS regulations (9 CFR 318.18, 318.24, 319.5, 319.6, and 319.15). 9. The regulatory requested sampling program for AMR products derived from beef vertebra is ready to begin. The Eastern Laboratory is prepared to use their modified immunohistochemical procedure to detect CNS (spinal cord) tissues in AMR products derived from beef vertebrae. Currently, the optimum level of this testing procedure for the Eastern Laboratory is about 100 to 110 samples per week, or about 20 to 22 samples per workday. Initially, all AMR systems producing AMR products derived from beef vertebrae will be randomly tested for CNS tissues at least once every three weeks. Relatively riskier establishments for the presence of CNS (spinal cord) tissues in their AMR products derived from beef bones can be expected to be sampled more frequently than those determined to be relatively less risky. 10. During the summer of 2002, Townsend Engineering of Des Moines, Iowa, sponsored a one-day demonstration of one of their models of Protecon AMR systems for the production of AMR products derived from beef vertebrae. This demonstration was conducted at Iowa State University at Ames, Iowa. AMR products were produced from feedstock vertebral columns that had been mechanically pre-processed (physical treatment by a cutting and vacuum removal of material of the spinal canal) by a particular type of hand-held power-driven tool. This power tool was used at a participating establishment for the removal of CNS (spinal cord) tissues and adjacent tissues of the spinal canal of the vertebral column. The control was vertebrae that received no special treatment or pre-processing preparation, or had spinal cords removed by hand at a participating establishment. A representative of the FSIS Eastern Laboratory (Athens, Georgia) collected composite AMR product samples from each of the treatments and the control. The FSIS Eastern Laboratory tested the AMR product samples for the presence of CNS (spinal cord) tissues, using their immunohistochemical procedure. Subsequently, the FSIS test results were found to be negative for CNS (spinal cord) tissues in all of the collected AMR product samples of the treatments and the control. Therefore, FSIS found no difference for the presence of CNS tissues between all of the treatments of feedstock beef vertebrae and the control. Also, AMR product samples of the 5 treatments and the control were collected and sent to the University of California Davis for analysis. The results of the UC Davis analysis have not yet been reported to FSIS. 6




Analysis of 2002 FSIS Bovine AMR Products Survey Results


Food Safety and Inspection Service United States Department ofAgriculture February 2003


AMR analysis, 02/27/03, page 2 of 55 Prepared by USDA, FSIS


Summary of results: 1) Some of the establishments (4 of 34 or 12%) from which samples were collected were able to consistently produce advanced meat/bone separation and meat recovery (AMR) products derived from beef vertebrae, that did not contain unacceptable nervous tissues (spinal cord (SC) or dorsal spinal nerve root ganglia (DRG)). This result was based on not detecting unacceptable nervous tissues (UNT) in 6 or more samples taken randomly over about a seven-month period. On the other hand, some establishments’ samples were nearly all positive for UNT, suggesting that much of the AMR product derived from beef vertebrae in these establishments would contain unacceptable nervous tissues. 2) For the study, approximately 35% of the finished AMR product samples had unacceptable nervous tissues detected; 29% of the samples had SC tissue detected; and 10% had DRG tissue detected. However, the percentages of positive samples were significantly different for different periods of the survey. For the last third of the survey, the percentage of positive (for any unacceptable nervous tissues) postdesinewing samples was about 44%, versus 31% for the first two-thirds of the survey. 3) The presence of SC and DRG tissues in these samples were not significantly correlated, suggesting that there may be different factors that cause their occurrence in this product. 4) The type of bones used in processing may contribute to the likelihood of unacceptable nervous tissues being present in the finished product; however, regardless of the type of bone used, product can be produced with a low likelihood of the presence of unacceptable nervous tissues. 5) On histologic examination, nearly all (96.5%) of the AMR product samples were found to contain hematopoietic cells, which indicates the presence of bone marrow. For the presence of hematopoietic cells, there was no significant difference between the two different basic designs (two manufacturers) of AMR machines that were used to produce AMR products. 6) The average of the calcium values for post-desinewing samples was 91.7 mg/100g; the highest value was 159 mg/100g. For establishments for which all samples were negative for SC and DRG, the average of the calcium levels was 77.0 mg/100g. 7) The average of the excess iron (iron – 0.138(1.1) protein) measurements was 2.81 mg/100g. For establishments for which all samples were negative for SC and with one exception, DRG, the average of the excess iron levels was 2.20 mg/100g, where, from 27 results, 3 were greater than 3.1 mg/100g. 8) Excess iron and calcium were positively correlated, suggesting a common set of factors that influence their levels. In general, higher levels of these variables were associated with a higher likelihood of UNT being in the product, suggesting that these variables reflect processing parameters that might be related to the likelihood of unacceptable nervous tissues being present in the product. However, there were significant expectations to general trends. 9) Relationships between excess iron and calcium and machine operating parameters and product type were equivocal. 2 AMR analysis, 02/27/03, page 3 of 55 Prepared by USDA, FSIS 10) Protein levels decreased, on average, by about 3%, as a result of the desinewing step. Since the protein that was being removed was most likely iron-deficient, this finding suggests that the excess iron measure be adjusted to account for this loss of protein. 11) Thirteen percent of the post-desinewing samples that were negative for unacceptable nervous tissues had positive finding for the matched pre-desinewing sample. This suggests that the quantity of sample used for determining the presence of unacceptable nervous tissues may be too small, or composite samples were not sufficiently homogeneous in the distribution of UNT. 12) An ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) method was compared with the direct FSIS histologic method (immunohistochemical microscopic examination) of detecting UNT. While there was a correlation between the ELISA results and the findings of UNT in samples by the direct method, there were also significant number false negative findings. Using a cutoff value for determining positive samples that provides an approximate 25% false positive rate, the false negative rate on the all positive samples, as determined by the direct method, was about 30%; for samples from establishments for which most of their samples were positive, the false negative rate was about 20%. Of further concern, though, is that false negative rates seemed to be related to the establishment from which the samples were taken; no discernable “reason” was found to help explain possible causes for this establishment-specific dependency. 13) The Agency observed a wide variation in the physical character of AMR products of the study. The AMR-product variation in texture and consistency ranged from similar to ground beef derived from hand-deboned product to similar to thick tomato soup or sauce. However, these observations were not related to analytical results obtained on samples. 14) Twenty-three establishments that had positive SC samples submitted 68 follow-up AMR product samples for verification (which were not included in the survey results). Most of the follow-up samples were collected after the survey. All, but two, establishments had no more than 3 follow-up samples; the two exceptional establishments had 12 and 19 samples. For these two establishments, the percentages of positive survey and follow-up samples were nearly the same, of about 40-50%. For the other 21 establishments the percentages of positive follow-up samples were generally less than the percentages for the survey samples. Overall, approximately 1/3 (22 or 67) of the follow-up samples was positive for SC tissue.


full text about 55 pages;




Greetings List Members,


can you imagine all these potential regulations, and not one word about human/animal TSEs aka MAD COW DISEASEs? talk about your FFC (FEAR FACTOR CONTROL)$ it's hard to imagine all this data, and not one word on TSEs (unless i missed something)...TSS






C:\WINNT\Profiles\bredagi.000\Desktop\Tissue infectivity & heads_Opinion_UPDATE_0211_FINAL.doc 3 (3) Possible consideration as specified risk material of the entire head of cattle, sheep and goats, including skeletal muscle, tongue and associated innervation. Regarding cattle affected by or incubating BSE, the SSC considers that there is new evidence from tissue infectivity studies showing that certain head tissues (in addition to: brain, eyes, dura mater, pituitary gland and skull) could possibly be regarded as SRM at least under certain circumstances. So far results of infectivity bioassays in cattle have supported the view that in the clinical disease stage of BSE, regional lymph nodes, including those of the head have no detectable infectivity. Furthermore, assay results of trigeminal ganglion suggest a low titre of infectivity only in the clinical disease stage, probably secondary to CNS involvement. However, whereas completed results of mouse bioassays of pituitary, cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF), the cranial cervical ganglion, facial nerve, tongue, salivary glands and several lymph nodes of the head from preclinical and clinical stages of experimental BSE in cattle have not revealed infectivity, there is now evidence from cattle-tocattle transmission studies that the palatine tonsil may contain low levels of infectivity at an early stage of the incubation period and that this may affect the safe consumption of tongue if there is a risk of contamination of this tissue. There is still no new infectivity data for cattle to suggest that skeletal muscle, tongue or associated nerves should be considered SRM at any age. However, the risk assessment carried out on behalf of the German authorities show that the SSC’s initial statement that the “Exclusion from SRM of bovine tongue and cheek meat remains justified providing contamination by CNS, introduced during slaughter, can be avoided” may not necessarily be appropriate. That conclusion was reached considering the long list of critical points in the process of slaughtering the animal, the removal, storage and transport of the head and of the harvest of cheek meat.


On the basis of what precedes the SSC considers that:


(1) the tonsil of a bovine animal of any age should be regarded as posing a risk. (2) the tongue of animals certified safe for human consumption does not pose a risk if contamination with CNS and tonsil material is avoided for animals of any age. This may imply that the harvested section of the tongue is shortened [to the “short tongue”], to avoid, by a cautious margin, removal with the tongue of that part of the root of the tongue containing lingual tonsil. (3) cheek meat of animals certified safe for human consumption, which is collected as part of a different process (Annex 2), does not pose a risk if a wide range of precautions to avoid cross-contamination is taken. The feasibility of implementation of these precautions under field conditions may however be questioned and would in any case require to be previously verified. With respect to sheep, there is involvement of lymphoid tissue of the head at an early stage of incubation in experimental BSE in sheep, consistent with the view that BSE in sheep has a pathogenesis with respect to tissue distribution of infectivity comparable with natural scrapie. Somatic peripheral nerve trunk infectivity, although categorised as “low” in scrapie, may be widespread in the carcass by the clinical disease stage. If, as seems likely, this results from “centrifugal” spread from the CNS and infectivity can be detected in the CNS in experimental BSE of sheep approximately 40-50% through the incubation period, infectivity may be present in somatic peripheral nerve fibres from this stage. These observations make it difficult to recommend an appropriate lower age limit for the exclusion of any head tissues of sheep if BSE were confirmed or considered likely in a given population. Furthermore, the practicalities in slaughtering of small ruminants may necessitate removal of the entire head as SRM at all ages. Also, the risk of cross-contamination of tongue with tissues with likely infectivity from early in the incubation of BSE, with or without penetrative stunning, in small ruminants, is considered high. Consequently, if BSE is considered to be present in sheep, the whole or entire head, including the tongue, of all ages of sheep should be included in the list of SRMs irrespective of slaughterhouse practices, until evidence to the contrary becomes available. Very limited data are available for goats. The conclusions for sheep are therefore considered to be a reasonable approximation also for goats. Table 1: Natural scrapie in sheep and goats: classification of tissues by agent titre in Swiss mice and by age, in pre-clinical and clinical cases of Scrapie in Suffolk sheep and in goats1 (Re-edited but unammended from Annex: Opinion on The Policy of Breeding and Genotyping of Sheep, 22-23 July 1999) (EC 1999) Infectivity titres*: A = high (? 10 4.0) B = medium (10 3.2 – 10 4.0) C = low (? 10 3.2 or unknown) D = undetectable Ileum DRG: see Report.


snip...


please see all charts and graphs;


UPDATE OF THE OPINION ON TSE INFECTIVITY DISTRIBUTION IN RUMINANT TISSUES INITIALLY ADOPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE AT ITS MEETING OF 10-11 JANUARY 2002 AND AMENDED AT ITS MEETING OF 7-8 NOVEMBER 2002 following the submission of (1) a risk assessment by the German Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, food and Agriculture and (2) new scientific evidence regarding BSE infectivity distribution in tonsils






Policy in Confidence BSE: Mechanically Recovered Meat (OLD DATA)


snip...


4. The Food Labelling Regulations


Few meat products containing MRM are labelled as such and the legal obligation to do so is disputed...


snip...


8. Implications Regarding BSE


snip...


( a ) small pieces of spinal cord inadvertently remaining in the vertebral column;


( b ) contamination from carcase splitting; or


( c ) the failure to remove nerves from between the vertebrae.


The degree of contamination varies according to the type of saw used in splitting the carcase. ...


snip...








PLEASE SEE NEW URL...2012...TSS






551 6. Events from 1 April to 31 December 1995: human health returns to the agenda Introduction 6.1 The events in the BSE story during 1995 were well summarised by Mr Thomas Eddy2407 in his statement to the Inquiry: 1995. A year which started with concerns about CJD [Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease] cases in dairy farmers, continuing trade problems and saw the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) and the realisation that public health controls were not as they should be in some slaughterhouses and the first glimmerings that a new form of CJD might be arising.2408 6.2 In this chapter we start with the launch of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) on 1 April 1995, which was set up to bring about significant changes in the arrangements for enforcing meat hygiene standards in slaughterhouses. We describe briefly the functions of the Service and how it was staffed. We look at the views of witnesses about the benefits to be gained from the new arrangements. During the period covered by this chapter the MHS initiated two surveys of standards in slaughterhouses. We look at the results and outcomes of these surveys. 6.3 We then turn to the results from slaughterhouse surveillance by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) from April to December 1995. We give a chronological account of the surveillance visits to slaughterhouses undertaken by the SVS during this period to assess the extent of compliance with the SBO Regulations. We describe how during the second half of 1995 the SVS recorded instances of pieces of spinal cord being left in some carcasses at some slaughterhouses, and how, as a result, there were growing concerns within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and Department of Health (DH) that BSE control measures were not being implemented adequately in some slaughterhouses. 6.4 The next main section of the chapter looks at developments in relation to mechanically recovered meat (MRM) from April to December 1995. As a result of the SVS reports that some slaughterhouses were not completely removing spinal cord from some carcasses, MAFF sought the views of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), which concluded that, as a precaution, the use of bovine spinal column should be suspended in the production of MRM. We look at how this advice was implemented by means of the Specified Bovine Offal (Amendment) Order 1995, which came into force on 15 December 1995. 2407 MAFF Assistant Secretary, Head of Animal Health (Disease Control) Division 2408 S109 Eddy para. 56 HUMAN HEALTH, 1989–96 6.5 We then turn briefly to look at other developments in relation to BSE and CJD during April–December 1995, in particular the incidence of CJD in farmers and young people and the continuing BSE epidemic as a result of cases born after the ruminant feed ban. Further details on these two aspects of the story are given in vol. 8: Variant CJD and vol. 2: Science respectively. 6.6 The final section of the chapter examines the various statements issued during April–December 1995 by the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC), Sir Kenneth Calman the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), the Secretary of State for Health and members of SEAC, and the reaction in the media to these statements. We also look at the efforts made by the MLC, in collaboration with MAFF, to increase sales of beef to the domestic market during this period.


snip...continued here with about 102 pages;




new url...2012...tss






pink slime and a ship of fools, with Governor Rick Perry at the helm.


john gummer of England, force fed his daughter mad cow beef. a few years later, a young friend of theirs (23) died from mad cow disease. NOW, Governor Rick Perry, shows he is as big a fool as John Gummer.






see more on this sad sad saga here ;


Wednesday, March 14, 2012


PINK SLIME, MRM’s, BSE AKA MAD COW DISEASE, AND THE USDA NSLP




Sunday, August 28, 2011


Rick Perry, Texas, BSE aka mad cow disease, CJD, and 12 years of lies there from






Comment from Terry Singeltary Document ID: APHIS-2008-0010-0008 Document Type: Public Submission This is comment on Proposed Rule: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Importation of Bovines and Bovine Products Docket ID: APHIS-2008-0010 RIN:0579-AC68 Topics: No Topics associated with this document View Document: More Document Subtype: Public Comment Status: Posted Received Date: March 22 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time Date Posted: March 22 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time Comment Start Date: March 16 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time Comment Due Date: May 15 2012, at 11:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time Tracking Number: 80fdd617 First Name: Terry Middle Name: S. Last Name: Singeltary City: Bacliff Country: United States State or Province: TX Organization Name: CJD TSE PRION Submitter's Representative: CONSUMERS


Comment:


comment submission Document ID APHIS-2008-0010-0001 Greetings USDA, OIE et al, what a difference it makes with science, from one day to the next. i.e. that mad cow gold card the USA once held. up until that fateful day in December of 2003, the science of BSE was NO IMPORTS TO USA FROM BSE COUNTRY. what a difference a day makes$ now that the shoe is on the other foot, the USDA via the OIE, wants to change science again, just for trade $ I implore the OIE decision and policy makers, for the sake of the world, to refuse any status quo of the USA BSE risk assessment. if at al, the USA BSE GBR should be raise to BSE GBR IV, for the following reasons. North America is awash with many different TSE Prion strains, in many different species, and they are mutating and spreading. IF the OIE, and whatever policy makers, do anything but raise the risk factor for BSE in North America, they I would regard that to be highly suspicious. IN fact, it would be criminal in my opinion, because the OIE knows this, and to knowingly expose the rest of the world to this dangerous pathogen, would be ‘knowingly’ and ‘willfully’, just for the almighty dollar, once again. I warned the OIE about all this, including the risk factors for CWD, and the fact that the zoonosis potential was great, way back in 2002. THE OIE in collaboration with the USDA, made the legal trading of the atypical Nor-98 Scrapie a legal global commodity. yes, thanks to the OIE and the USDA et al, it’s now legal to trade the atypical Nor-98 Scrapie strain all around the globe. IF you let them, they will do the same thing with atypical BSE and CWD (both strains to date). This with science showing that indeed these TSE prion strains are transmissible. I strenuously urge the OIE et al to refuse any weakening to the USA trade protocols for the BSE TSE prion disease (all strains), and urge them to reclassify the USA with BSE GBR IV risk factor. SEE REFERENCE SOURCES IN ATTACHMENTS


SEE Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Attachment WORD FILE ;






Sunday, March 11, 2012


APHIS Proposes New Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Import Regulations in Line with International Animal Health Standards Proposal Aims to Ensure Health of the U.S. Beef Herd, Assist in Negotiations




Wednesday, April 4, 2012


Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Importation of Bovines and Bovine Products APHIS-2008-0010-0008 RIN:0579-AC68




L-BSE, TME, AND SPORADIC CJD aka mad cow disease in North America


Moreover, transmission experiments to non-human primates suggest that some TSE agents in addition to Classical BSE prions in cattle (namely L-type Atypical BSE, Classical BSE in sheep, transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) and chronic wasting disease (CWD) agents) might have zoonotic potential.


snip...






Thursday, August 12, 2010


Seven main threats for the future linked to prions


First threat


The TSE road map defining the evolution of European policy for protection against prion diseases is based on a certain numbers of hypotheses some of which may turn out to be erroneous. In particular, a form of BSE (called atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), recently identified by systematic testing in aged cattle without clinical signs, may be the origin of classical BSE and thus potentially constitute a reservoir, which may be impossible to eradicate if a sporadic origin is confirmed.


***Also, a link is suspected between atypical BSE and some apparently sporadic cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. These atypical BSE cases constitute an unforeseen first threat that could sharply modify the European approach to prion diseases.


Second threat


snip...






Saturday, June 25, 2011


Transmissibility of BSE-L and Cattle-Adapted TME Prion Strain to Cynomolgus Macaque


Transmissibility of BSE-L and Cattle-Adapted TME Prion Strain to Cynomolgus Macaque


Emmanuel Comoy,1,† Valérie Durand,1 Evelyne Correia,1 Sophie Freire,1 Jürgen Richt,2 Justin Greenlee,3 Juan-Maria Torres,4 Paul Brown,1 Bob Hills5 and Jean-Philippe Deslys1 1Atomic Energy Commission; Fontenay-aux-Roses, France; 2Kansas State University; Manhattan, KS USA; 3USDA; Ames, IA USA; 4INIA; Madrid, Spain; 5Health Canada; Ottawa, ON Canada†Presenting author; Email: emmanuel.comoy@cea.fr


The epidemiology of Transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) indicates an alimentary origin. Several inter-species transmission experiments have not succeeded in establishing with certainty any natural reservoir of this prion strain, although both ovine and bovine sources have been suspected. Cattle exposed to TME develop a spongiform encephalopathy that is distinct from classical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (c-BSE). Inoculation of c-BSE to cynomolgus macaque provided early evidence of a possible risk to humans, and remains an important model to define the risk of both primary (oral transmission from cattle to primate) and secondary (intravenous intra-species transmission) exposures. We have also evaluated the transmissibility of other cattle prion strains to macaques, including L- and H- atypical forms of BSE, namely BSE-L and BSE-H, and cattle-adapted TME. BSE-L induced a neurological disease distinct from c-BSE. Peripheral exposures demonstrate the transmissibility of BSE-L by oral, intravenous, and intra-cerebral routes, with incubation periods similar to c-BSE. Cattle-adapted TME also induced a rapid disease in cynomolgus macaque. The clinical features, lesion profile, and biochemical signature of the induced disease was similar to the features observed in animals exposed to BSE-L, suggesting a link between the two prion strains. Secondary transmissions to a common host (transgenic mouse overexpressing bovine PrP) of cattle-TME and BSE-L before or after passage in primates induced diseases with similar incubation periods: like the c-BSE strain, these cattle strains maintained their distinctive features regardless of the donor species and passages. If the link between TME and BSE-L is confirmed, our results would suggest that BSE-L in North America may have existed for decades, and highlight a possible preferential transmission of animal prion strains to primates after passage in cattle.


=====================end...tss====================


link url not available, please see PRION 2011 ;






Volume 13, Number 12–December 2007


Research


Phenotypic Similarity of Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy in Cattle and L-type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Mouse Model


Thierry Baron,* Anna Bencsik,* Anne-Gaëlle Biacabe,* Eric Morignat,* andRichard A. Bessen†*Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments–Lyon, Lyon, France; and†Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA


Abstract


Transmissible mink encepholapathy (TME) is a foodborne transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) of ranch-raised mink; infection with a ruminant TSE has been proposed as the cause, but the precise origin of TME is unknown. To compare the phenotypes of each TSE, bovine-passaged TME isolate and 3 distinct natural bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agents (typical BSE, H-type BSE, and L-type BSE) were inoculated into an ovine transgenic mouse line (TgOvPrP4). Transgenic mice were susceptible to infection with bovine-passaged TME, typical BSE, and L-type BSE but not to H-type BSE. Based on survival periods, brain lesions profiles, disease-associated prion protein brain distribution, and biochemical properties of protease-resistant prion protein, typical BSE had a distint phenotype in ovine transgenic mice compared to L-type BSE and bovine TME.The similar phenotypic properties of L-type BSE and bovine TME in TgOvPrP4 mice suggest that L-type BSE is a much more likely candidate for the origin of TME than is typical BSE.


snip...


Conclusion


These studies provide experimental evidence that the Stetsonville TME agent is distinct from typical BSE but has phenotypic similarities to L-type BSE in TgOvPrP4 mice. Our conclusion is that L-type BSE is a more likely candidate for a bovine source of TME infection than typical BSE. In the scenario that a ruminant TSE is the source for TME infection in mink, this would be a second example of transmission of a TSE from ruminants to non-ruminants under natural conditions or farming practices in addition to transmission of typical BSE to humans, domestic cats, and exotic zoo animals(37). The potential importance of this finding is relevant to L-type BSE, which based on experimental transmission into humanized PrP transgenic mice and macaques, suggests that L-type BSE is more pathogenic for humans than typical BSE (24,38).






PLoS One. 2012; 7(2): e31449.


Published online 2012 February 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031449


PMCID: PMC3283643


Infectivity in Skeletal Muscle of Cattle with Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


The present data offer novel information on the tropism of the BASE agent and highlight relevant public health issues. While the transmission barrier for classical BSE is high in most species, BASE prions are readily transmissible to a variety of mammals including non-human primates [11]–[13], [35]. Accordingly, the possibility of spreading of BASE prions through skeletal muscle to other species should be taken into account and evaluated in risk analysis studies.






Thursday, March 29, 2012


atypical Nor-98 Scrapie has spread from coast to coast in the USA 2012


NIAA Annual Conference April 11-14, 2011San Antonio, Texas




WHAT ABOUT THE FDA MAD COW FEED BAN THAT NEVER WAS $$$


Saturday, November 6, 2010


TAFS1 Position Paper on Position Paper on Relaxation of the Feed Ban in the EU


Berne, 2010 TAFS INTERNATIONAL FORUM FOR TRANSMISSIBLE ANIMAL DISEASES AND FOOD SAFETY a non-profit Swiss Foundation




Archive Number 20101206.4364 Published Date 06-DEC-2010 Subject PRO/AH/EDR>


Prion disease update 2010 (11) PRION DISEASE UPDATE 2010 (11)






Friday, April 20, 2012


Ultrastructural findings in pigs experimentally infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent




Monday, March 26, 2012


CANINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: A NEW FORM OF ANIMAL PRION DISEASE






FELINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY FSE










Monday, March 26, 2012


CANINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: A NEW FORM OF ANIMAL PRION DISEASE


OR-09 15:10 - 15:25 CANINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: A NEW FORM OF ANIMAL PRION DISEASE David












IN CONFIDENCE




SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE




CYO BSE 1 9




IN CONFIDENCE




SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE




The Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Maclean) will wish to be aware that, in making his differential diagnosis, a veterinary surgeon in the Reading area has included the possibility of BSE in a horse under his care. Although it is unlikely to be BSE, because of the symptoms exhibited the veterinarian believes that he cannot exclude the possibility. The case was brought to the notice of one of the veterinary staff at the CVL by the owner's veterinary surgeon and liaison is being maintained.




The horse in question is a five-year old eventing gelding which was purchased by the present owner about four months ago. Approximately two months after purchase the animal became a little apprehensive, developed mild nervous symptoms and became over-sensitive to noise. The nervous symptoms have increased and the horse is now practically impossible to ride. Investigations by the owner's private veterinary surgeon are continuing but it is likely that the animal will have to be destroyed.




If the horse should die or be destroyed, a full post-mortem examination will be required for insurance purposes and will probably be carried out at a non-Ministry laboratory. However, Mr Bradley of the Pathology Department, CVL, has informed the private veterinary surgeon that he is willing to provide a second opinion on the brain histology if requested.




I will keep the Parliamentary Secretary informed of any further developments in the case.




I CRAWFORD




14 May 1990




Mr M P H Hill, PS/Parliamentary secretary (Mr Maclean) - by FAX




cc:




Private Offices




Mr K C Meldrum




Mrs E A J Attridge D J Evans Mr K C Taylor Mr R Lawson Mr R Bradley. CVL




(hand written notes i cannot read all (cut short) as follows...tss)




The Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Maclean was grateful for this. He said that we must keep very close to ...on it, and when the horse dies, or is put down we must be told immediately. He also feels it is very important that our veterinary staff be involved in the brain examination. .........(cannot read the rest .............TSS)




90/05.14/10.1








Mr A Huws Principal WOAD2A CP2




SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE




You will wish to be aware that on Thursday afternoon 25 June the T/DVO Powys received a phone call from a veterinary Surgeon reporting his suspicion that a horse had ___contracted BSE after having been fed cattle cake___.




The clinical symptoms described were similar to those shown by cattle there ___being a similar case some months ago on the same premises___.




The owner' s name and address is:




Irene Thomas J Thomas & Company Riding Stables Penybryn Llangorse Brecon




The horse is a 12 year old gelding used for pony trekking.




By yesterday evening the horse was in a comatose state and on humane grounds was destroyed by the veterinary Surgeon. At his request a full post mortem and laboratory investigation will be carried out at the Carmarthen Veterinary Investigation Centre this morning to ascertain the exact cause; I have been told this will take at least two weeks. Charges to the veterinary Surgeon have been waived in this instance.




I will inform you immediately I receive a diagnosis.




26 June 1990




D SUMMERS DRVO




cc




Mr D R Williams, RVO




Mr A R Hunter, SVIO




90/06.26/10.1








Mr A Huws Principal WOAD2A CP2




SUSPECT BSE IN A HORSE




You will wish to be aware that on Thursday afternoon 25 June the T/DVO Powys received a phone call from a veterinary Surgeon reporting his suspicion that a horse had contracted BSE after having been fed cattle cake. The clinical symptoms described were similar to those shown by cattle there being a similar case some months ago on the same premises.




The owner' s name and address is:




Irene Thomas J Thomas & Company Riding Stables Penybryn Llangorse Brecon




The horse is a 12 year old gelding used for pony trekking.




By yesterday evening the horse was in a comatose state and on humane grounds was destroyed by the veterinary Surgeon. At his request a full post mortem and laboratory investigation will be carried out at the Carmarthen Veterinary Investigation Centre this morning to ascertain the exact cause; I have been told this will take at least two weeks. Charges to the veterinary Surgeon have been waived in this instance.




I will inform you immediately I receive a diagnosis.




26 June 1990




D SUMMERS DRVO




cc




Mr D R Williams, RVO




Mr A R Hunter, SVIO




90/06.26/10.1










Equine Spongiform Encephalopathy ESE






PET FOODS MAD CATS AND MAD DOGS BSE/TSEs


worse still, there is serious risk the media could get to hear of such a meeting...


snip...


Crushed heads (which inevitably involve brain and spinal cord material) are used to a limited extent but will also form one of the constituent raw materials of meat and bone meal, which is used extensively in pet food manufacturer...






SEE NEW URL...TSS...2012






2. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was concerned about the possibility that countries in which BSE had not yet been detected could be exporting raw meat materials (in particular crushed heads) contaminated with the disease to the UK for use in petfood manufacture...


snip...


YOU explained that imported crushed heads were extensively used in the petfood industry...




SEE NEW URL...TSS...2012






In particular I do not believe one can say that the levels of the scrapie agent in pet food are so low that domestic animals are not exposed...




SEE NEW URL...TSS...2012










SEE NEW URL...TSS...2012






some 100+ _documented_ TSE cats of all types later...tss


on occassions, materials obtained from slaughterhouses will be derived from sheep affected with scrapie or cattle that may be incubating BSE for use in petfood manufacture...




SEE NEW URL...TSS...2012






Meldrum's notes on pet foods and materials used




SEE NEW URL...TSS...2012






BSE & Pedigree Petfoods




SEE NEW URL...TSS...2012






Tuesday, July 14, 2009 U.S.


Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary and BSE Red Book


Date: February 14, 2000 at 8:56 am PST


WHERE did we go wrong $$$






LET'S take a closer look at this new prionpathy or prionopathy, and then let's look at the g-h-BSEalabama mad cow. This new prionopathy in humans? the genetic makeup is IDENTICAL to the g-h-BSEalabama mad cow, the only _documented_ mad cow in the world to date like this, ......wait, it get's better. this new prionpathy is killing young and old humans, with LONG DURATION from onset of symptoms to death, and the symptoms are very similar to nvCJD victims, OH, and the plaques are very similar in some cases too, bbbut, it's not related to the g-h-BSEalabama cow, WAIT NOW, it gets even better, the new human prionpathy that they claim is a genetic TSE, has no relation to any gene mutation in that family. daaa, ya think it could be related to that mad cow with the same genetic make-up ??? there were literally tons and tons of banned mad cow protein in Alabama in commerce, and none of it transmitted to cows, and the cows to humans there from ??? r i g h t $$$ ALABAMA MAD COW g-h-BSEalabama In this study, we identified a novel mutation in the bovine prion protein gene (Prnp), called E211K, of a confirmed BSE positive cow from Alabama, United States of America. This mutation is identical to the E200K pathogenic mutation found in humans with a genetic form of CJD. This finding represents the first report of a confirmed case of BSE with a potential pathogenic mutation within the bovine Prnp gene. We hypothesize that the bovine Prnp E211K mutation most likely has caused BSE in "the approximately 10-year-old cow" carrying the E221K mutation.






Saturday, August 14, 2010


BSE Case Associated with Prion Protein Gene Mutation (g-h-BSEalabama) and VPSPr PRIONPATHY (see mad cow feed in COMMERCE IN ALABAMA...TSS)




her healthy calf also carried the mutation (J. A. Richt and S. M. Hall PLoS Pathog. 4, e1000156; 2008).


This raises the possibility that the disease could occasionally be genetic in origin. Indeed, the report of the UK BSE Inquiry in 2000 suggested that the UK epidemic had most likely originated from such a mutation and argued against the scrapierelated assumption. Such rare potential pathogenic PRNP mutations could occur in countries at present considered to be free of BSE, such as Australia and New Zealand. So it is important to maintain strict surveillance for BSE in cattle, with rigorous enforcement of the ruminant feed ban (many countries still feed ruminant proteins to pigs). Removal of specified risk material, such as brain and spinal cord, from cattle at slaughter prevents infected material from entering the human food chain. Routine genetic screening of cattle for PRNP mutations, which is now available, could provide additional data on the risk to the public. Because the point mutation identified in the Alabama animals is identical to that responsible for the commonest type of familial (genetic) CJD in humans, it is possible that the resulting infective prion protein might cross the bovine-human species barrier more easily. Patients with vCJD continue to be identified. The fact that this is happening less often should not lead to relaxation of the controls necessary to prevent future outbreaks. Malcolm A. Ferguson-Smith Cambridge University Department of Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK e-mail: maf12@cam.ac.uk Jürgen A. Richt College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, K224B Mosier Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506-5601, USA NATURE|Vol 457|26 February 2009






SEE FULL TEXT OF ALL THIS HERE ;


2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006






Saturday, June 25, 2011


Transmissibility of BSE-L and Cattle-Adapted TME Prion Strain to Cynomolgus Macaque


"BSE-L in North America may have existed for decades"






> > > Ackerman says downed cattle are 50 times more likely to have mad cow disease (also known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE) than ambulatory cattle that are suspected of having BSE. Of the 20 confirmed cases of mad cow disease in North America since 1993, at least 16 have involved downer cattle, he said. < < <


PLEASE NOTE *


Over the next 8-10 weeks, approximately 40% of all the adult mink on the farm died from TME. snip... The rancher was a ''dead stock'' feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy cattle...






PLoS One. 2012; 7(2): e31449.


Published online 2012 February 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031449


PMCID: PMC3283643


Infectivity in Skeletal Muscle of Cattle with Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


The present data offer novel information on the tropism of the BASE agent and highlight relevant public health issues. While the transmission barrier for classical BSE is high in most species, BASE prions are readily transmissible to a variety of mammals including non-human primates [11]–[13], [35]. Accordingly, the possibility of spreading of BASE prions through skeletal muscle to other species should be taken into account and evaluated in risk analysis studies.




don’t forget the children...


PLEASE be aware, for 4 years, the USDA fed our children all across the Nation (including TEXAS) dead stock downer cows, the most high risk cattle for BSE aka mad cow disease and other dangerous pathogens.


who will watch our children for CJD for the next 5+ decades ???


WAS your child exposed to mad cow disease via the NSLP ???


SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FROM DOWNER CATTLE UPDATE








DID YOUR CHILD CONSUME SOME OF THESE DEAD STOCK DOWNER COWS, THE MOST HIGH RISK FOR MAD COW DISEASE ??? you can check and see here ;






Saturday, March 5, 2011


MAD COW ATYPICAL CJD PRION TSE CASES WITH CLASSIFICATIONS PENDING ON THE RISE IN NORTH AMERICA




Sunday, February 12, 2012


National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center Cases Examined1 (August 19, 2011) including Texas http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2012/02/national-prion-disease-pathology.html




Monday, April 16, 2012


Continuing Enhanced National Surveillance for Prion Diseases in the United States






Thursday, April 12, 2012


Health professions and risk of sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, 1965 to 2010


Eurosurveillance, Volume 17, Issue 15, 12 April 2012


Research articles






MOM DOD 12-14-97 Heidenhain Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease ‘confirmed’ TEXAS, YEARS OF RICK PERRY BEING TEXAS AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER, THEN ON TO GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, WHERE TWO MAD COWS WERE COVERED UP under Perry’s watch, ONE SUCCESSFULLY, AND ONE THAT TOOK AN ACT OF CONGRESS and 7 MONTHS TO FINALLY CONFIRM via WEYBRIDGE ENGLAND.




layperson


Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518


flounder9@verizon.net




Saturday, April 21, 2012


HISD seeks refund on burgers with 'pink slime'





Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)