Meat Country Of Origin Labels: Trade Groups Sue USDA
By DAVID PITT 07/09/13 06:07 PM ET EDT AP
Follow:
Country Of Origin, Country Of Origin Labels, Meat, Meat Country Of Origin,
Meat Groups, Meat Labels, Meat Trade Groups, New Meat Labels, Green News .
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Requiring meat labels to have more details about a
product's origins is too costly and serves no public health or safety benefit,
industry groups said Tuesday in announcing a lawsuit against U.S. Department of
Agriculture over new labeling rules.
The rules went into effect in May and require labels for steaks, ribs and
other cuts of meat to detail where animals grown for meat were born, raised and
slaughtered. Previously, labels only required that countries of origin to be
noted, so a package might say, "Product of U.S. and Canada." Now, the labels
must specify "Born in Canada, raised and slaughtered in the United
States."
In addition, the USDA is prohibiting processors from mixing meat from
animals born, raised, or slaughtered in Mexico, Canada, or other countries with
meat from the U.S.
The American Meat Institute, a trade group for packers, processors, and
suppliers and seven other groups said segregating the meat is not part of the
law Congress passed and the USDA is overstepping its authority. They also claim
the rule will be costly to implement and that it offers no food safety or public
health benefit.
"Segregating and tracking animals according to the countries where
production steps occurred and detailing that information on a label may be a
bureaucrat's paperwork fantasy, but the labels that result will serve only to
confuse consumers, raise the prices they pay, and put some producers and meat
and poultry companies out of business in the process," Mark Dopp, an AMI
executive, said in a statement.
The USDA says the country of original labeling, known as COOL, will help
consumers make informed decisions about the food they buy.
"USDA remains confident that these changes will improve the overall
operation of the program and also bring the mandatory COOL requirements into
compliance with U.S. international trade obligations," it said.
Other advocates of the new rule say segregating meat will help if a food
safety issue develops.
"We've found that there's strong consumer support for country-of-origin
labels. When you buy meat to feed your family, you ought to be able to know
where it comes from," said Ami Gadhia, senior policy counsel for Consumers
Union, a New York-based consumer advocacy group. "If there's a food safety
problem with a certain product, the labels can help consumers avoid that
product."
The rules also have had support from other farmers' organizations, along
with environmental groups.
The meat industry groups that sued said in court documents that about 4
percent to 7 percent of beef and pork consumed in the U.S. comes from animals
from other countries. In some parts of the U.S., including Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California, as much as half of the livestock used for meat could be
imported.
Once in the supply chain, the meat becomes interchangeable with meat from
U.S. animals, the groups said.
"In short, beef is beef, whether the cattle were born in Montana, Manitoba,
or Mazatlán," the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., said. "The
same goes for hogs, chickens, and other livestock."
Meat suppliers will be forced to segregate the animals along the entire
supply chain "from the moment livestock are put in a pen on U.S. soil,
throughout the production, storage, and distribution process, until the meat is
placed on store shelves for sale."
The USDA estimates the labeling change will cost somewhere between $53.1
million and $192.1 million to put in place. The National Grocers Association
said it expected it to cost at least $100 million as companies buy new signs,
labels and labeling machines.
The lawsuit, filed by groups that include cattle and pork associations in
the U.S. and Canada, claims the rule violates the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit
also alleges the rule violates the 2008 farm bill because the requirement is
much broader than the law intended.
>>>DES MOINES, Iowa -- Requiring meat labels to have more details
about a product's origins is too costly and serves no public health or safety
benefit, industry groups said Tuesday in announcing a lawsuit against U.S.
Department of Agriculture over new labeling rules.<<<
bottom line, BIG AG does NOT want the consumer to be able to track what
they consume from farm to fork. that’s the bottom line $$$
here is a fine example, just off the top of my head ;
California BSE mad cow beef in commerce recall, QFC, and CJD
On January 6, 2004, over 2 weeks from recall initiation, USDA determined
that the beef went to only six states—Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada,
Idaho, and Montana—and that no beef went to Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam. To reach
that conclusion, USDA used the distribution lists, shipping records, and sales
invoices that it received from companies to piece together exactly where the
recalled beef may have been sent. The lists showed that 713 customers may have
received the recalled beef; 6 of those may have received beef from more than one
source. USDA determined that 176 customers on the lists did not actually receive
recalled beef, including the customers in Guam and Hawaii. USDA’s review also
indicated that recalled beef was probably not shipped to Alaska or Utah, and
USDA checked 2 retailers in Alaska and 3 retailers in Utah to confirm that was
the case. In total, USDA conducted verification checks on 537 of the 713
customers on the lists. USDA’s initial checks identified an additional 45
customers that may have received the recalled beef that were not included on the
distribution lists, for a total of 582 verification checks. Figure 4 summarizes
USDA’s verification efforts during the recall.
SNIP...
USDA’s press release stated that the recall involved 10,410 pounds of beef
products, and the USDA recall coordinator for this recall told us that
downstream processors mixed the recalled beef with nonrecalled beef, for a total
of more than 38,000 pounds of beef that was distributed at the secondary
customer level. According to USDA officials involved with the recall, the
precise amount of meat that was sold at the retail level is unknown because
retailers at the tertiary level further mixed nonrecalled meat with potentially
contaminated meat. USDA told us that more than 64,000 pounds of beef was
ultimately returned or destroyed by customers, and that, because of the mixing,
it was not able to determine how much of the original 10,410 pounds of recalled
beef was contained in the 64,000 pounds that were recovered.
Parts of the BSE-infected animal slaughtered on December 9, 2003, were not
used for food, but they were sent to renderers to be separated into raw
materials, such as proteins and blood. Rendered materials are used for many
purposes, including cosmetics and vaccines. FDA has jurisdiction over
renderers.
SNIP...
QFC sued over mad cow case
Grocer negligently exposed them to beef, family claims
Friday, March 5, 2004
By LEWIS KAMB SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
An Eastside family who says they ate beef linked to the nation's only
known case of mad cow disease yesterday filed a class-action lawsuit against
QFC, claiming the grocery store chain negligently exposed them and others to
"highly hazardous" meat and did not properly notify them that they had bought
it.
Attorneys for Jill Crowson, a 52-year-old interior designer from Clyde
Hill, filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court on behalf of her family
and possibly hundreds of other customers who unwittingly bought and consumed
beef potentially exposed to mad cow disease.
"I was pretty upset about it," Crowson said. "I've spent all of my kids'
lives trying to be a responsible parent for them to keep them safe. I felt badly
that the food I served could be harmful to their health."
The lawsuit is believed to be the first stemming from this country's only
confirmed case of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which
was detected in a slaughtered Holstein from a Yakima Valley ranch on Dec.
23.
Neither officials at Quality Food Centers' Bellevue headquarters, or
Kroger -- the company's Ohio-based corporate parent -- could be reached for
comment about the lawsuit yesterday.
The suit contends the family bought and later ate ground beef from their
local QFC that was part of a batch processed at Vern's Moses Lake Meats on Dec.
9 and included meat from the diseased Holstein.
The beef was later shipped to wholesalers and retailers in Washington,
Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.
On Dec. 23 -- after government scientists confirmed the Holstein was
infected with BSE -- businesses began pulling potentially affected beef from
store shelves under a voluntary recall.
But the family's suit claims that, although QFC was aware of the recall on
Dec. 23, the store did not begin pulling the recalled beef from about 40 of its
stores that carried it until Dec. 24.
The company also did not try to warn customers about the recalled beef
until Dec. 27 -- and only then with small, inconspicuous signs inside the
stores, the suit claims.
Steve Berman, the family's attorney, said the company had "a duty to warn"
consumers who bought the beef under terms of the Washington Product Liability
Act.
QFC could've easily notified customers by taking out TV, radio or
newspaper ads, or by tracking and notifying those who bought the beef through
customers' QFC Advantage Cards, Berman said.
At Berman's downtown Seattle firm yesterday, Crowson described how on Dec.
22 and Dec. 23 -- the day of the recall -- she bought single packages of "9
percent leanest ground beef" from her local QFC store at Bellevue Village.
Crowson took the beef home, cooked it and made tacos one night and
spaghetti the next -- serving the dinners to herself; her daughter, Laura, 22;
son, Nicholas, 19; and her niece, Claire De Winter, 23. Members of the family
also ate leftovers from those meals for the next several days, Crowson
said.
"When the news about mad cow came out, I instantly became concerned,"
Crowson said. "But the initial stories didn't mention anything about QFC, so I
thought we were OK."
While shopping at the grocery store a few days later, Crowson said she
asked a store butcher whether QFC stores had sold any of the recalled beef. The
butcher assured her they had not, she said.
The family only learned QFC had sold any of the beef in question after
reading a news story Jan. 10 about a Mercer Island man who discovered his family
had eaten affected beef that he bought at a local QFC store, Crowson said.
Crowson later called QFC and faxed the company a signed letter asking that
it track purchases made on her QFC Advantage Card -- a store discount card
issued to customers. On Jan. 12, the company notified Crowson that the beef she
bought and served to her family was, in fact, part of the recalled batch, she
said.
Scientists believe people who eat beef from infected cows can contract a
fatal form of the disease.
The family is "now burdened with the possibility that they presently carry
(the disease) that may have an incubation period of up to 30 years," the lawsuit
says.
Lawyers for the family say they believe hundreds, if not thousands, of QFC
customers, and those of other stores, likely ate beef from the recalled batch --
the reason why Berman filed their legal claim as a class-action lawsuit. A USDA
official this week said that up to 17,000 pounds of meat affected by the recall
likely was eaten or thrown out by customers.
Berman added that an investigator from his firm learned that QFC buys beef
for its "9 percent leanest ground beef" products in large tubs that can weigh
several hundred pounds, and then regrinds and packages the meat for sale.
Because QFC stores regrind the beef before selling it, Berman contends
that makes the store a manufacturer responsible under the Washington Product
Liability Act for not selling any unsafe product.
Scientists believe people who eat beef from cows infected with BSE can
contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob, a fatal brain-wasting disease that has been
detected in about 150 people worldwide.
However, officials with the U.S. Agriculture Department have repeatedly
said the risk from eating muscle cuts from an infected cow -- the likely cut of
meat processed and sold for hamburger in the recalled batch -- is extremely
low.
Although Crowson said she tries not to "obsess over it," she is fearful
that her family could one day become sick.
"It's pretty scary," she said.
Because no medical test is available to determine whether a living person
is infected with the disease, the couple's "stress and fear cannot be allayed,"
the lawsuit said.
The family seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress and medical
monitoring costs.
Crowson said her reason for bringing the lawsuit isn't about money. "The
more I've thought about this, the angrier I've gotten," she said.
snip...
QFC s Delayed Mad Cow Response Draws Lawsuit Family claims QFC should have
used customer database to warn those at risk sooner
March 05, 2004
SEATTLE A Bellevue, Wash. family today filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Quality Food Centers (QFC), a subsidiary of Kroger (NYSE: KR),
claiming the grocery store chain should have used information gathered through
its customer loyalty program to warn those who purchased beef potentially
tainted with mad cow disease.
The suit, filed in King County Superior Court, seeks to represent all
Washington residents who purchased the potentially tainted meat, and asks the
court to establish a medical monitoring fund.
Jill Crowson purchased the potentially tainted beef from a Bellevue QFC on
Dec. 22 and 23, and used her Advantage Card, QFC s customer loyalty program. She
served the meat to her husband over Dec. 25 and 26, and later heard of the
recall in the newspaper.
Steve Berman, the attorney representing the Crowsons, asserts that since
the company tracks purchases, it should have warned the Crowsons and many other
customers who purchased the beef at approximately 40 stores across
Washington.
If you lose your keys with an Advantage Card attached, QFC will return
them to you free of charge, said Berman. If they can contact you over a lost set
of car keys, why couldn t they contact you and tell you that the beef you
purchased could kill you?
QFC is among the large number of grocers that track customer purchases
through loyalty cards like the Advantage Card. Once a customer shares contact
information including name, address and phone number they are given discounts on
certain items.
Regardless of any discounts offered, the loyalty card tracks customers
every purchase and stores them in a central database, the complaint
states.
We contend that QFC knew which Advantage Card customers purchased the
suspect meat, and could have easily called to warn them, said Berman. Instead,
QFC used a series of spurious excuses to hide their failure to act.
On Dec. 23, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered the recall of
approximately 10,410 pounds of raw beef that may have been infected with bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which if consumed by humans can lead to the
always-fatal Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease (vCJD).
According to the complaint, QFC at first mistakenly believed it did not
have any of the affected beef and took no action to remove the product from its
shelves. The store later removed the beef on Dec. 24, but then did little to
warn those who earlier purchased the meat, the suit claims.
It wasn t until Dec. 27 that the grocery chain posted small signs with
information about the recall, the complaint alleges.
The Crowsons contacted QFC when they suspected they had purchased the
potentially tainted meat, but QFC would not confirm their suspicions for two
more weeks, the suit states. According to Berman, the family had to file a
written request before QFC would confirm their fears.
According to health experts, Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease can have an
incubation period of as long as 30 years. There is no test to determine if
infection took place after possible exposure, nor is there any treatment once
one is infected. The condition is always fatal.
If the court grants the suit class-action status, QFC would likely be
compelled to turn over the names of those who purchased the potentially tainted
beef.
The proposed class-action claims QFC violated provisions of the Washington
Product Liability Act by failing to give adequate warning to consumers about the
potentially dangerous meat.
The suit seeks unspecified damages for the plaintiffs, as well as the
establishment of a medical monitoring fund.
QFC's Delayed Mad Cow Response Draws Lawsuit
... subsidiary of Kroger , claiming the grocery store chain should
... beef potentially tainted with "mad cow disease
... beef at approximately 40 stores across Washington.
...
www.forrelease.com/D20040305/sff005.P2.03042004214558.03634.html
040307 Woman Sues QFC Over Mad-Cow Recall ... Jakob disease, the human form
of mad-cow, from eating ... QFC is subject to the Washington Product Liability
... been found in a slaughtered Yakima County dairy cow. ...
www.spcnetwork.com/mii/2004/040307.htm
Subject: GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER PREFERS CALIFORNIANS TO EAT MAD COW BEEF
IN SECRECY, VETOED BILL SB 1585
Date: October 1, 2004 at 2:22 pm PST
GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER PREFERS CALIFORNIANS TO EAT MAD COW BEEF IN
SECRECY, VETOED BILL SB 1585
snip...
The Suit
What is the key issue in this suit?
On December 23, 2003, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
recalled more than 10,000 pounds of raw beef that could have been exposed to
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Humans consuming BSE-tainted meat can
contract Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), an always-fatal condition.
QFC sold this meat throughout its stores in Washington. Even though QFC
had the ability to quickly warn every customer who purchased the potentially
deadly meat if they used the QFC advantage card at the time of purchase, the
grocery store neglected to do so, the suit alleges.
Who does the suit seek to represent?
The suit seeks to represent all persons who purchased recalled meat from
any QFC store in the state of Washington.
Who are the defendants?
Quality Food Centers, or QFC. Once a local, Northwest company, QFC is now
a wholly owned subsidiary of the grocery chain giant, Kroger.
What does the suit seek?
The suit asks the court to order QFC to establish a medical monitoring
fund which would allow those who purchased and consumed the meat to seek medical
care, checking for, and if necessary, treating --- the infection of vCJD. The
suit also seeks the creation of a medical notification system, allowing those
who may have been exposed to the disease to receive periodic updates on research
and treatment of vCJD. The suit also seeks unspecified damages for the
plaintiffs.
Does the suit claim QFC violated specific laws?
Yes. The lawsuit claims QFC violated the Washington Product Liability Act.
In addition, the suit claims QFC was negligent by not warning consumers of the
dangers associated with the affected meat.
Where was the lawsuit filed?
The suit was filed in King County Superior Court on March 4, 2004.
How do I determine if I qualify to join the lawsuit?
If you have a QFC Advantage card and believe that you bought recalled meat
from a QFC store, you may be eligible to join the lawsuit. Click here to fill
out the sign-up request form, or you can contact Hagens Berman attorneys.
QFC
What is the QFC Advantage Card?
The Advantage Card is known in the grocery industry as a Customer Loyalty
Card. Customers who sign up for QFC's Advantage Card receive special discounts
on selected items, but gives the grocery store chain the ability to track
consumers purchases in order to enhance their marketing efforts. In addition,
grocery chains which offer affinity card programs often use the database and
shopping pattern data to send users coupons and other marketing material.
According to the complaint, QFC tracks every purchase made by consumers
presenting the Advantage Card, including product description, date of purchase,
store of purchase and the price, and saves that data with customer contact
information.
What was QFC's response to the meat recall?
On Dec. 23, 2003, QFC received notice from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) of a recall of approximately 10,410 lbs. of raw meat that may
have been contaminated with the infectious agent that causes mad cow disease.
QFC did not act immediately on the recall notice but initially responded by
denying that it had any of the tainted meat. On December 24 QFC pulled the meat
from its shelves, but the company took no steps to directly warn consumers. It
was not until Dec. 27 that QFC posted small signs in its stores recalling the
tainted beef, according to the complaint. During that four day period when QFC
was silent hundreds of consumers may have eaten the meat.
Can QFC determine if an Advantage Card holder purchased the potentially
dangerous meat?
Yes. In fact, consumers can now contact QFC directly and the company will
provide information about meat purchases ? but only if you ask. Hundreds of
other consumers who purchased the meat and are unaware of the situation have not
heard from QFC, the complaint states.
Why was QFC sued even though they pulled the meat? Under Washington law
since QFC ground the meat it is deemed a manufacturer and is strictly liable for
any unsafe product. In addition QFC possessed specific and easily obtainable
information on which customers purchased the recalled meat, but did not act to
inform customers, the suit states. Considering the potential danger and risk of
worry for consumers, and the ease of contacting consumers using database
information, simply pulling the meat from the shelves and belatedly posting
small signs was not an adequate response, according to the complaint.
What information on customer purchases does QFC track with the Advantage
Card? QFC tracks every purchase that a customer with an Advantage Card makes,
regardless of whether discounts are offered or not, according to the
complaint.
Does the recently announced larger-than-expected recall of beef affect the
lawsuit? No. Regardless of the size of the beef recall, attorneys believe the
facts in the case remain the same.
How can I find out if I bought recalled meat from QFC? If you believe that
you may have purchased recalled meat from a QFC store, and you have an Advantage
Card, you can contact QFC and ask if your record shows you purchased recalled
beef. You can contact QFC at 866-221-4141.
Isn't QFC prohibited by privacy laws from contacting consumers with
warnings like this? No ? the suit notes that the company will return car keys
returned to the store if the keys have an Advantage Card attached. According the
complaint, If QFC can return car keys by mail, why can't they send a notice
saying the meat a customer purchased in their store could cause an incurable,
fatal disease? Further privacy laws would prevent QFC from disclosing
information to third parties, disclosing the information to the customer whose
card it is does not violate privacy laws. For example, if a trade group wanted
to know the names of consumers who purchased a given drug sold at QFC,
disclosure of that private information might be a privacy concern. However,
disclosure to a consumer of his own records is not.
Mad Cow Disease
What is Mad Cow disease? In cows, mad cow disease is defined as bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and is a progressive neurological disease. The
human disease variant is know as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), which is a
rare brain disorder that causes a rapid, progressive dementia and is always
fatal, according to the complaint.
Where can I get more information on Mad Cow disease? The USDA provides
information on the disease at www.usda.gov/.
What should I do if I believe that I've eaten recalled meat? According to
the complaint, no screening tests or treatments have been found for
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Those who suspect they've eaten recalled meat should
contact their physician for more information.
Do Stores That Offer Loyalty Cards Have a Duty to Notify Customers of
Product Safety Recalls? A Recent Suit Raises This Novel Question By ANITA
RAMASASTRY ----
Thursday, Aug. 05, 2004
An interesting new Washington state court suit raises an important
question: If a retailer benefits from collecting personally identifiable
information about its customers, does it have a corresponding duty to use such
data to alert its customers that products they've bought have been recalled for
health or safety reasons? And if so, could turning over private data to
companies actually create benefits, as well as privacy risks, for the consumer?
snip...see full text ;
Sunday, November 13, 2011
California BSE mad cow beef recall, QFC, CJD, and dead stock downer
livestock
IT is of my opinion, that the OIE and the USDA et al, are the soul reason,
and responsible parties, for Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE prion
diseases, including typical and atypical BSE, typical and atypical Scrapie, and
all strains of CWD, and human TSE there from, spreading around the globe.
I have lost all confidence of this organization as a regulatory authority
on animal disease, and consider it nothing more than a National Trading
Brokerage for all strains of animal TSE, just to satisfy there commodity. AS i
said before, OIE should hang up there jock strap now, since it appears they will
buckle every time a country makes some political hay about trade protocol,
commodities and futures. IF they are not going to be science based, they should
do everyone a favor and dissolve there organization.
JUST because of low documented human body count with nvCJD and the long
incubation periods, the lack of sound science being replaced by political and
corporate science in relations with the fact that science has now linked some
sporadic CJD with atypical BSE and atypical scrapie, and the very real threat of
CWD being zoonosis, I believed the O.I.E. has failed terribly and again, I call
for this organization to be dissolved. ...
IN A NUT SHELL ;
(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)
11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate
declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries. The
OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease status
based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status or other
significant events that were not promptly reported to the Central Bureau,
Thursday, May 30, 2013
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has upgraded the United States'
risk classification for mad cow disease to "negligible" from "controlled", and
risk further exposing the globe to the TSE prion mad cow type disease
U.S. gets top mad-cow rating from international group and risk further
exposing the globe to the TSE prion mad cow type disease
Sunday, June 23, 2013
National Animal Health Laboratory Network Reorganization Concept Paper
(Document ID APHIS-2012-0105-0001)
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. submission
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Emerging Infectious Diseases (-$2.425 million) This request includes funds
to focus on necessary activities for prion disease
A FOOLISH MOVE BY THE GOVERNMENT...TSS
but no more foolish than this ;
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
APHIS USDA Administrator Message to Stakeholders: Agency Vision and Goals
Eliminating ALL remaining BSE barriers to export market
Friday, December 14, 2012
DEFRA U.K. What is the risk of Chronic Wasting Disease CWD being introduced
into Great Britain? A Qualitative Risk Assessment October 2012
Saturday, July 6, 2013
***Small Ruminant Nor98 Prions Share Biochemical Features with Human
Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker Disease and Variably Protease-Sensitive
Prionopathy
Research Article
Thursday, June 6, 2013
***BSE TSE PRION USDA FDA MAD COW FEED COMPLIANCE REPORT and NAI, OAI, and
VAI ratings as at June 5, 2013
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
***Weld County Bi-Products dba Fort Morgan Pet Foods 6/1/12 significant
deviations from requirements in FDA regulations that are intended to reduce the
risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) within the United States
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
*** Canada, USA, Bad feed, mad cows: Why we know three BSE cases had a
common origin and why the SSS policy is in full force $$$
CFIA, USDA, AND OIE SHOOT, SHOVEL, AND SHUT THE HELL UP SSS BSE TSE PRION
MAD COW TYPE POLICY $$$, and the media is buying it hook, line, and sinker $$$
EDMONTON - Some of former Alberta premier Ralph Klein's most colourful
quotes — and the reactions they elicited:
SNIP...
"This all came about through the discovery of a single, isolated case of
mad cow disease in one Alberta cow on May 20th.
The farmer — I think he was a Louisiana fish farmer who knew nothing about
cattle ranching.
*** I guess any self-respecting rancher would have shot, shovelled and shut
up, but he didn't do that." — Klein recalls how the mad cow crisis started and
rancher Marwyn Peaster's role.
The premier was speaking at the Western Governors Association meeting in
Big Sky, Mont. September 2004.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010.
Manitoba veterinarian has been fined $10,000 for falsifying certification
documents for U.S. bound cattle and what about mad cow disease?
CENSORSHIP IS A TERRIBLE THING $$$.
Canada has had a COVER-UP policy of mad cow disease since about the 17th
case OR 18th case of mad cow disease. AFTER THAT, all FOIA request were ignored
$$$.
Thursday, February 10, 2011.
TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY REPORT UPDATE CANADA FEBRUARY 2011
and how to hide mad cow disease in Canada Current as of: 2011-01-31.
Thursday, January 17, 2013.
Canada, U.S. agree on animal-disease measures to protect trade, while
reducing human and animal health protection.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010.
REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CASE OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM
ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN CANADA.
Thursday, August 19, 2010.
REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SEVENTEENTH CASE OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM
ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN CANADA.
Friday, March 4, 2011.
Alberta dairy cow found with mad cow disease.
Increased Atypical Scrapie Detections.
Press reports indicate that increased surveillance is catching what
otherwise would have been unreported findings of atypical scrapie in sheep. In
2009, five new cases have been reported in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and
Saskatchewan. With the exception of Quebec, all cases have been diagnosed as
being the atypical form found in older animals. Canada encourages producers to
join its voluntary surveillance program in order to gain scrapie-free status.
The World Animal Health will not classify Canada as scrapie-free until no new
cases are reported for seven years. The Canadian Sheep Federation is calling on
the government to fund a wider surveillance program in order to establish the
level of prevalence prior to setting an eradication date. Besides long-term
testing, industry is calling for a compensation program for farmers who report
unusual deaths in their flocks.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Increased susceptibility of human-PrP transgenic mice to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy following passage in sheep
Monday, April 25, 2011
Experimental Oral Transmission of Atypical Scrapie to Sheep
Volume 17, Number 5-May 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Atypical/Nor98 Scrapie Infectivity in Sheep Peripheral Tissues
SUMMARY REPORT CALIFORNIA BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY CASE
INVESTIGATION JULY 2012
Summary Report BSE 2012
Executive Summary
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Update from APHIS Regarding Release of the Final Report on the BSE
Epidemiological Investigation
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
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
20120402 - Breach of quarantine/Violation de la mise en quarantaine of an
ongoing Scrapie investigation
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Feds want five-year paper trail for livestock NAIS COOL
Friday, December 21, 2012
USDA Issues Final Rule for Animal Disease Traceability
Thursday, September 6, 2012
R-CALF and others jointly filed a lawsuit against the World Trade
Organization (WTO), Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk over COOL
Friday, July 6, 2012
cattle from Mexico enter USA illegally, indications they are being sold in
Texas and New Mexico
Friday, November 18, 2011
country-of-origin labeling law (COOL) violates U.S. obligations under WTO
rules WT/DS384/R WT/DS386/R
Thursday, July 28, 2011
An Update on the Animal Disease Traceability Framework July 27, 2011
Friday, August 20, 2010
USDA: Animal Disease Traceability August 2010
Greetings,
as a consumer, my opinion (if that matters), you need some sort of
traceability for your livestock. I don't want to know anything about your
family, your income, your kids, your sex life, nothing but to be able to trace
that animal from farm to fork. I want to know whether or not if that animal has
been fed animal protein, antibiotics, and if myself or my family do get sick, we
should be able to trace that product. I don't see the problem. you can trace
every part on your car, I can find out anything I want about you on the
internet. why can't I do that with a cow?
let's review a few things about the NAIS, why we need it past and present.
let's review first the few mad cows that were accidently found, birth cohorts,
herd cohorts etc., and how efficient or NOT the traceability of those 4 animals
were....oops, that's right, the first stumbling and staggering mad cow in Texas
was sent straight to the render, did not pass GO(inspection), did not get
$200.(prion rapid test), and of course, was never confirmed. THEN the second mad
cow, the one that would never have been confirmed if not for an act of Congress
and the Honorable Fong of the OIG, and scientist from the EU and the USA asking
questions, meanwhile the BSE MRR was being finalized. Then after 7 months of
sitting on the shelf, after a secret test had already turned up positive, but
yet still 7 months no confirmation on a BSE positive test that by the BSE Red
Books, it should have been a 48 hour turnaround on that test. Finally, the 2nd
Texas mad cow was confirmed positive BSE. later termed atypical h-BSE. Then you
had the Alabama mad cow, now termed g-h-BSEalabama, and then of course the mad
cow old Luther capped in Washington state, the white one, that changed colors,
and then was said to be a Canadian traitor c-BSE mad cow. IT's all Canada's
fault ;-(NOT)
Be sure to see the latest data on the typical and atypical cases of BSE and
Scrapie and any human CJD TSE there from. This is down toward the bottom of the
posting.
BSE, USDA, NAIS, AND TRACEABILITY
Let's look at how the USDA et al trace BSE aka mad cow cases, birth, and
index herd cattle in the past (or rather how they could not trace them).
TEXAS MAD COW (h-BSE), that was finally tested and documented 7+ months
after an act of Congress, and Scientist from all over the Globe questioning the
testing methods and negative findings of this Texas mad cow. ...
TEXAS h-BSE MAD COW CASE THAT WAS FINALLY DOCUMENTED
Birth Cohort The owner of Farm A kept very few herd records; this made
finding documentation on this cow’s birth cohort difficult. The birth cohort, by
definition, included all cattle born on the positive animal’s birth premises
within 1 year, before or after, the positive animal’s date of birth. The index
cow was approximately 12 years of age in November 2004, but there was no exact
birth date in the herd records. A potential age range of 11 to 13 years was used
to sufficiently cover the animal’s most likely age. Using this range, all cattle
born on the index premises between 1990 and 1995 were considered part of the
birth cohort. In lieu of the owner’s records, herd records from Veterinary
Services’ Generic Database (GDB) were used to compile a list of brucellosis
calfhood vaccination (CV) tag numbers from the index herd that corresponded to
animals to be included in the birth cohort. There were 121 animals identified
through GDB as having been calfhood vaccinated on the index farm between 1991
and 1994. The owner of Farm A did not calfhood vaccinate after 1994. Moreover,
calfhood vaccinates include only heifers. Therefore, the list of 121 animals was
not a complete list of all birth cohorts. However the tracing that response
personnel conducted on other COI was designed to account for the remainder of
the birth cohorts.
Feed Cohort ...
SNIP...
Tracing of Progeny
The 2003/2004 progeny of the index cow was known to have left the farm
through a specific livestock market sometime between February and October 2004.
The 2002/2003 progeny of the index cow left the farm through the same market
sometime between January
8
and December 2003. Response personnel learned early in the investigation
that animals from the index farm were sold not only under the index farm owner’s
name and that of his wife, but also by other members of the owner’s immediate
family. Additionally, there were no herd records to indicate the gender of the
two at-risk progeny. Therefore, market records for February through October 2004
and January through December 2003 were obtained for all calves sold both by Farm
A’s owner and by members of his immediate family; response personnel traced all
such calves to determine their disposition. With the index herd being composed
of mixed breed beef cattle, the calves that left the farm were genetically
unsuitable for use as replacement animals or for sale as breeding stock, a fact
that was confirmed by the trace work and the documentation of the final
disposition of the calves of interest.
Response personnel ultimately identified 213 calves of interest to be
traced. Of these, 208 were confirmed to have entered known rendering/slaughter
channels, 4 were presumed to have entered rendering/slaughter channels, and 1
was purchased in cash through a livestock market with no buyer name or contact
information (this animal was classified as untraceable. See Appendix 1). A calf
was categorized as presumed to have entered rendering/slaughter channels if it
passed through at least one livestock market subsequent to its original sale and
could not be individually traced due to unknown resale date and new backtag, but
all calves resold matching that description during an appropriate date range
were purchased by known rendering/slaughter order buyers.
It was not possible to DNA test the calves that entered known rendering and
slaughter channels – most were of an age in which they were likely to have been
slaughtered prior to the time of the investigation. There were no calves traced
to farms outside of rendering and slaughter channels.
Tracing of Birth Cohorts
Since there were essentially no records maintained on the index farm, it
was necessary to compile the list of known birth cohorts using brucellosis CV
tag numbers for this herd from the period 1991 to 1994. The calves vaccinated
during that time period were part of the index cow’s birth cohort and tracing
activities centered on finding those animals. There were 121 animals whose CV
tag number and/or tattoo included them as part of the birth cohort. Of those 121
animals, 67 animals were definitively accounted for (42 were found in the index
herd, removed, and tested BSE negative; 25 were identified as having left Farm A
through the market system and were traced, 11 of those were reported
slaughtered, 13 were classified as presumed dead, and 1 was found alive,
euthanized, and tested BSE negative). Of the remaining 54 animals from the birth
cohort, there may have been several that died within the index herd, but the
majority likely left the herd without identification and would have been either
re-tagged at the livestock market or consigned directly to slaughter without
identification. To account for these remaining birth cohorts, all adult cattle
that left the index farm since 1990 were traced as COI.
9
Tracing of Cattle of Interest
The investigation revealed that many animals left Farm A, arrived at
markets without any identification tags, and were subsequently re-tagged at the
market. Due to lack of farm records, it is unknown which of these re-tagged
animals may have belonged to the birth cohort. As a result, all animals that may
have left Farm A since 1990 were traced as COI. Additionally, animals from the
index farm were sold not only under the index farm owner’s name and that of his
wife, but also by other members of the owner’s immediate family; therefore,
cattle sold from the index farm by all pertinent family members were traced.
There were some older animals that left the index farm but were able to be
excluded from further trace work because they were known not to have been part
of the birth cohort or feed cohort of the index cow despite their being of the
appropriate age. The index farm owner’s late father had maintained a herd of
cattle separate from the index farm but which was added to the index farm in
1997. Complete herd test data and CV data from the GDB was obtained for the
father’s herd and those animals were excluded from the tracing activities.
There were a total of 200 COI traced: 143 were reported to have been
slaughtered (131 of those were confirmed as having been slaughtered), 1 is known
to have died previously and was buried, 2 were found alive (1 was a known birth
cohort that tested negative, 1 was determined not to be one of the cattle of
interest due to her young age), 34 were classified as presumed dead, 20 were
classified as untraceable. (See Appendix 1). Animals were confirmed at slaughter
using GDB slaughter testing data or the hard copies of slaughter testing Form
4-54.
An animal was classified as presumed dead if records that could be used to
advance the tracing of the animal were exhausted or did not exist, and the age
of the animal at the time of the investigation was estimated to be at least 11
years old or older. Since the index herd was not a purebred or seedstock
operation, and animals leaving the herd were unlikely to be purchased as
replacement cattle, standard industry practices indicated that most adult
animals that had left the herd would have been culled and slaughtered by the
time they were in this age group. Additionally, this age cutoff was arrived at
through review of market records and the specific years in which Farm A sold
cattle through the market. An animal was classified as untraceable if all
records to advance the tracing of the animal were exhausted or did not exist,
and the age of the animal at the time of the investigation was estimated to be
less than 11 years of age (the animal, therefore, could not be presumed
dead).
snip...
Trace Herd 1
The owner of Trace Herd 1 was identified as having received one of the
adult COI from the index herd. Trace Herd 1 contained 909 head of cattle in
multiple pastures and was placed under hold order on 7/21/05. Upon completion of
herd inventory, the animal of interest was not found within the herd. A GDB
search of all recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 1 and all market sales
by the owner failed to locate the identification tag of the animal of interest
and she was subsequently classified as untraceable. The hold order on Trace Herd
1 was released on 8/8/05.
Trace Herd 2
Trace Herd 2 was identified as having received one of the adult COI from
the index herd. Trace Herd 2 contained 19 head of cattle on one pasture and was
placed under hold order on 7/25/05. The owner of Trace Herd 2 identified the
animal of interest by her eartag while he was feeding his cattle out of a bucket
and individually penned her for inspection by field personnel. While the cow was
identified as one of the animals that had left the index farm, her age by
dentition was estimated to be only 5 years old, which was too young to have
placed her as part of the birth or feed cohort of the index animal. She was
classified as found alive but determined not to be one of the COI; the hold
order on Trace Herd 2 was released on 7/26/05.
11
Trace Herd 3
The owner of Trace Herd 3 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of interest. The herd was placed under hold order on 7/27/05. The herd
inventory was conducted on 7/28/05. The animal of interest was not present
within the herd, and the hold order was released on 7/28/05. The person who
thought he sold the animal to the owner of Trace Herd 3 had no records and could
not remember who else he might have sold the cow to. Additionally, a search of
GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by that individual did not result in
a match to the animal of interest. The animal of interest traced to this herd
was classified as untraceable because all leads were exhausted.
Trace Herd 4
The owner of Trace Herd 4 was identified as having received one of the COI
through an order buyer. Trace Herd 4 was placed under hold order on 7/29/05. A
complete herd inventory was conducted on 8/22/05 and 8/23/05. There were 233
head of cattle that were examined individually by both State and Federal
personnel for all man-made identification and brands. The animal of interest was
not present within the herd. Several animals were reported to have died in the
herd sometime after they arrived on the premises in April 2005. A final search
of GDB records yielded no further results on the eartag of interest at either
subsequent market sale or slaughter. With all leads having been exhausted, this
animal of interest has been classified as untraceable. The hold order on Trace
Herd 4 was released on 8/23/05.
Trace Herd 5
The owner of Trace Herd 5 was identified as having received two COI and was
placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 5 is made up of 67 head of cattle
in multiple pastures. During the course of the herd inventory, the owner located
records that indicated that one of the COI, a known birth cohort, had been sold
to Trace Herd 8 where she was subsequently found alive. Upon completion of the
herd inventory, the other animal of interest was not found within the herd. A
GDB search of all recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 5 and all market
sales by the owner failed to locate the identification tag of the animal of
interest and she was subsequently classified as untraceable due to all leads
having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 5 was released on
8/8/05.
Trace Herd 6
The owner of Trace Herd 6 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of interest and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. This herd is made
up of 58 head of cattle on two pastures. A herd inventory was conducted and the
animal of interest was not present within the herd. The owner of Trace Herd 6
had very limited records and was unable to provide further information on where
the cow might have gone after he purchased her from the livestock market. A
search of GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by that individual did not
result in a match to the animal of interest. Additionally, many of the animals
presented for sale by the owner of the herd had been re-tagged at the market
effectually losing the traceability of the history of that animal prior to
re-tagging. The animal of interest traced to this herd was classified as
untraceable due to all leads having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd
6 was released on 8/3/05.
12
Trace Herd 7
The owner of Trace Herd 7 was identified as having received an animal of
interest and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 7 contains 487
head of cattle on multiple pastures in multiple parts of the State, including a
unit kept on an island. The island location is a particularly rough place to
keep cattle and the owner claimed to have lost 22 head on the island in 2004 due
to liver flukes. Upon completion of the herd inventory, the animal of interest
was not found present within Trace Herd 7. A GDB search of all recorded herd
tests conducted on Trace Herd 7 and all market sales by the owner failed to
locate the identification tag of the animal of interest. The cow was
subsequently classified as untraceable. It is quite possible though that she may
have died within the herd, especially if she belonged to the island unit. The
hold order on Trace Herd 7 was released on 8/8/05.
Trace Herd 8
Trace Herd 8 received an animal of interest, which happened to be a known
birth cohort of the index cow, from Trace Herd 5. Trace Herd 8 consists of 146
head of cattle that were placed under hold order on 8/4/05. A herd inventory was
conducted, the birth cohort was found alive in the herd, and she was purchased
and euthanized. The hold order on Trace Herd 8 was released on 8/4/05. The cow
was sampled on 8/5/05 and BSE tested by ELISA at NVSL. Results were negative (as
reported on 8/6/05); carcass disposal was completed by alkaline digestion.
Analysis of Data on Presumed Dead and Untraceable Animals
CEAH performed an analysis of the minimum estimated ages of those COI that
were classified as either presumed dead or untraceable to determine the likely
disposition of those animals based on their ages. Moreover, CEAH performed an
analysis of the likely disposition of the one calf that was classified as
untraceable during the investigation.
OF course, the birth and herd cohorts of this highly suspect, stumbling and
staggering mad cow in Texas, will never be known ;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement May 4, 2004 Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a
cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a
processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began
an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators
inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal
came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the
slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been
rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the
weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is
being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest
because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad
cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to
test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit
the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows,
goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing
the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If
it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been
shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for
swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply
chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly
monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian
protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA
established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K.
showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to
cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not
allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying
that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to
poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule
provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of
several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make
this strong system even stronger.
####
snip...please see full text ;
Friday, August 20, 2010
USDA: Animal Disease Traceability August 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
NAIS MAD COW TRACEABILITY DUMPED BY USDA APHIS 2010
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
NAIS, COOL, FROM FARM TO FORK, MAD COW DISEASE
Monday, June 3, 2013
Unsuccessful oral transmission of scrapie from British sheep to
cattle
Saturday, July 6, 2013
***
Small Ruminant Nor98 Prions Share Biochemical Features with Human
Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker Disease and Variably Protease-Sensitive
Prionopathy
Research Article
http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2013/07/small-ruminant-nor98-prions-share.html
TSS
