R-CALF would like to keep USDA from thinking about RFID traceability tags
By Dan Flynn on December 7, 2020
Where is the nation’s cattle herd is a question that could have traceability ramifications for food safety, or maybe more commonly for tracking dreaded animal diseases.
The USDA’s Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has picked at the issue for some time. In 2013, its final rule on “Traceability of Livestock Moving Interstate” came up with “official identification and documentation necessary for the interstate movement of certain types of livestock.”
The 2013 final rule did not require the use of any new technology, which was opposed then and opposed now by many cattle and bison producers. They want to stick with old ways like branding, non-Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) ear-tags, tattoos, group or lot identification numbers, and backlogs, but nothing involving chips or electronic signals.
The world, however, did move on, and RFID ear-tag technology has increasingly become the standard for livestock crossing borders in the developed world of international trade.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture posted a “factsheet,” suggesting it, too, was moving to RFID standards and phasing out the older methods of animal identification. On Oct. 4, 2019, the Billings, MT-based Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) along with some individual ranchers, sued the USDA over the fact sheet.
They claimed the 2019 factsheet was not adopted or issued pursuant to a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and was not published in the Federal Register.
But then an unusual thing happened.
On Oct. 25, 2019, three weeks after plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, APHIS posted a statement on its website announcing that it had removed the April 2019 factsheet from its website, stating it was “no longer representative of current agency policy.”
The U.S. District Court for Wyoming dismissed the R-CALF lawsuit as moot on Feb. 13, 2020, because the factsheet was withdrawn. As late as Nov. 16, 2020, Judge Nancy D. Freundenthal seemed likely to leave it in the court’s dead letterbox, but she did allow R-CALF 14 days to come up with “extremely limited” extra-record materials about the issue of a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) claim that R-CALF filed.
On that opening for the plaintiffs, the New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amended complaint asking the Wyoming federal court to add nine documents to the Administrative Record in the case of R-CALF, et al. v. USDA, et al.
The amended complaint seeks consideration of extra-record evidence and challenges USDA’s alleged violation of both the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by establishing and utilizing two separate advisory committees to provide recommendations for implementing the RFID ear-tags, but failing to follow the proper procedures for doing so.
New Civil Liberties Alliance claims APHIS established the “Cattle Traceability Working Group” in 2017 of which NCLA client Kenny Fox was a member.
The Alliance alleges that upon discovering that the CTWG was not producing the pro-RFID recommendations they desired, certain CTWG members sought to exclude anyone who opposed mandatory RFID from further participation, eventually starting a second advisory committee called the “Producer Traceability Council” or PTC.
“High-level USDA employees were actively involved with both the CTWG and PTC, but failed to follow the requirements of FACA by, among other things, ignoring public notice requirements and blocking the participation of those opposed to RFID requirements,” the amended complaint adds.
“Mr. Fox and other cattle producers who oppose mandating RFID ear-tag use have been entirely excluded from PTC membership, with only pro-RFID individuals and companies — such as electronic ear-tag manufacturers — being allowed to participate.”
The plaintiffs said the nine documents it has asked the court to add to the lawsuit are crucial to “showing that USDA ‘established’ and ‘utilized’ the CTWG and PTC as advisory committees in the development of the 2019 Factsheet and policy to move forward with mandating cattle and bison producers to use RFID ear-tags.”
Further, the plaintiffs said that USDA’s “briefs filed to date suggest that it will defend itself against R-CALF’s FACA claims by asserting that the Act is inapplicable to USDA’s interactions with the two advisory committees.”
“Our battle against USDA’s unlawful push to force livestock producers to use RFID ear-tags continues. Our latest efforts are designed to ensure that the court has a full record on which to evaluate our FACA claim against USDA” said Plaintiff attorney Harriet Hageman.
“While USDA has sought to avoid its obligations under FACA and the APA, we will keep moving forward to demand accountability and transparency in order to protect the constitutional and property rights of livestock producers throughout the country.”
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
Tags: APHIS, R-CALF USA, RFID ear tags, USDA
i am reminded;
Executive Summary
In June 2005, an inconclusive bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) sample from November 2004, that had originally been classified as negative on the immunohistochemistry test, was confirmed positive on SAF immunoblot (Western blot). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified the herd of origin for the index cow in Texas; that identification was confirmed by DNA analysis. USDA, in close cooperation with the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), established an incident command post (ICP) and began response activities according to USDA’s BSE Response Plan of September 2004. Response personnel removed at-risk cattle and cattle of interest (COI) from the index herd, euthanized them, and tested them for BSE; all were negative. USDA and the State extensively traced all at-risk cattle and COI that left the index herd. ***>The majority of these animals entered rendering and/or slaughter channels well before the investigation began. USDA’s response to the Texas finding was thorough and effective.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf
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.
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.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/epi-updates/bse_final_epidemiology_report.pdf
During the course of the investigation, USDA removed and tested a total of 67 animals of interest from the farm where the index animal's herd originated. All of these animals tested negative for BSE.
200 adult animals of interest were determined to have left the index farm.
Of these 200, APHIS officials determined that 143 had gone to slaughter, two were found alive (one was determined not to be of interest because of its age and the other tested negative), 34 are presumed dead, one is known dead and 20 have been classified as untraceable.
In addition to the adult animals, APHIS was looking for two calves born to the index animal.
Due to record keeping and identification issues, APHIS had to trace 213 calves.
Of these 213 calves, 208 entered feeding and slaughter channels, four are presumed to have entered feeding and slaughter channels and one calf was untraceable.
I URGE EVERYONE TO READ IN FULL, THE OIE REPORT 2019 ABOUT ATYPICAL BSE TSE PRION, SRMs, SBOs, and feed...tss
''Experts could not rule out other causes due to the difficulty of investigating individual cases. Some constraints are the long incubation period of the disease and the lack of detailed information available from farms at the time of the trace-back investigation.''
Scientists investigate origin of isolated BSE cases
The European response to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) after the crisis of the 1980s has significantly reduced prevalence of the disease in cattle. However, isolated cases are still being reported in the EU and for this reason the European Commission asked EFSA to investigate their origin.
The key measure for controlling BSE in the EU is a ban on the use of animal proteins in livestock feed. This is because BSE can be transmitted to cattle through contaminated feed, mainly in the first year of life.
Sixty cases of classical BSE have been reported in cattle born after the EU ban was enforced in 2001. None of these animals entered the food chain. Classical BSE is the type of BSE transmissible to humans. The Commission asked EFSA to determine if these cases were caused by contaminated feed or whether they occurred spontaneously, i.e. without an apparent cause.
EFSA experts concluded that contaminated feed is the most likely source of infection. This is because the infectious agent that causes BSE has the ability to remain active for many years. Cattle may have been exposed to contaminated feed because the BSE infectious agent was present where feed was stored or handled. A second possibility is that contaminated feed ingredients may have been imported from non-EU countries.
Experts could not rule out other causes due to the difficulty of investigating individual cases. Some constraints are the long incubation period of the disease and the lack of detailed information available from farms at the time of the trace-back investigation.
EFSA experts made a series of recommendations to maintain and strengthen the EU monitoring and reporting system, and to evaluate new scientific data that become available.
The European response to BSE
The coordinated European response to BSE has succeeded in reducing the prevalence of the disease. Between 2005 and 2015 about 73,000,000 cattle were tested for BSE in the EU, out of which 60 born after the ban tested positive for classical BSE. The number of affected animals rises to 1,259 if cattle born before the ban are included. The number of classical BSE cases has dropped significantly in the EU over time, from 554 cases reported in 2005 to just two in 2015 (both animals born after the ban). Moreover the EU food safety system is designed to prevent the entry of BSE-contaminated meat into the food chain.
PLOS ONE Journal
*** Singeltary reply ; Molecular, Biochemical and Genetic Characteristics of BSE in Canada Singeltary reply ;
IBNC Tauopathy or TSE Prion disease, it appears, no one is sure
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., 03 Jul 2015 at 16:53 GMT
***however in 1 C-type challenged animal, Prion 2015 Poster Abstracts S67 PrPsc was not detected using rapid tests for BSE.
***Subsequent testing resulted in the detection of pathologic lesion in unusual brain location and PrPsc detection by PMCA only.
*** IBNC Tauopathy or TSE Prion disease, it appears, no one is sure ***
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2020
***> REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE OIE SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION FOR ANIMAL DISEASES Paris, 9–13 September 2019 BSE, TSE, PRION
see updated concerns with atypical BSE from feed and zoonosis...terry
all other 2020 end of year reports for tse prion to follow the banned mad cow suspect feed in commerce...terry
mad cow feed in commerce USA, post mad cow feed ban 1997!
10 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. BLOOD LACED MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007 CODE Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007 RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross- contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 42,090 lbs. DISTRIBUTION WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products:
MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet,
HILLSIDE/CDL Prot- Buffer Meal,
LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet,
HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA,
M CUST PROT Meal,
SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend,
LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal,
DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral,
WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral,
WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal,
JENKS,
J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal,
COPPINI - 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix,
GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk),
TRIPLE J - PROTEIN/LACTATION,
ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral,
BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN,
BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR,
V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal,
VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal,
SMUTNY, A- BYPASS ML W/SMARTA,
Recall # V-025-2007
CODE The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated, net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated, Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim’s" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend, Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted, Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020, Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated, Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs, Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED, net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs, Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs, Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
125 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and FL
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy feds manufactured from concentrates, Recall # V-113-6
CODE
All dairy feeds produced between 2/1/05 and 6/16/06 and containing H. J. Baker recalled feed products.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Vita Plus Corp., Gagetown, MI, by visit beginning on June 21, 2006. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The feed was manufactured from materials that may have been contaminated with mammalian protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
27,694,240 lbs
DISTRIBUTION
MI
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
=====
PRODUCT
Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
CODE
No code or lot number.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Mars Petcare US, Clinton, OK, by telephone on May 21, 2009. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Product may have contained prohibited materials without cautionary statement on the label.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
208,820 pounds
DISTRIBUTION
TX
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 26, 2009
###
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL KY VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:19 pm PST
PRODUCT Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing. REASON Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22 71.248.128.67
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals, Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg), Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE a) Bulk b) None c) Bulk d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and by press release on June 16, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION Nationwide
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006
###
Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration
New Orleans District 297 Plus Park Blvd. Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: 615-781-5380 Fax: 615-781-5391
May 17, 2006
WARNING LETTER NO. 2006-NOL-06
FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products 2621 State Street Dallas, Texas 75204
Dear Mr. Shirley:
On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 589.2000], Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to follow the requirements of this regulation; products being manufactured and distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:
You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after processing mammalian tissues.
You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.
As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Act.
This letter is not intended as an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take prompt action to correct these violations, and you should establish a system whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.
You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating corrections have been made.
Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie, Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.
Sincerely,
/S
Carol S. Sanchez Acting District Director New Orleans District
PLEASE NOTE, THE FDA URLS FOR OLD WARNING LETTERS ARE OBSOLETE AND DO NOT WORK IN MOST CASES. I LOOKED UP THE OLD ONE ABOVE AND FOUND IT, BUT HAVE NOT DONE THAT FOR THE OTHERS TO FOLLOW. THE DATA IS VALID THOUGH!
Subject: MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE USA 2006 RECALL UPDATE
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: SAFETY <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:10:37 -0500
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS
IN COMMERCE AL, TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST
PRODUCT a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6; b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6; c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6; d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6. CODE None RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION AL
______________________________
snip...
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA, MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
snip...
______________________________
PRODUCT Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-120-6
CODE None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Ware Milling Inc., Houston, MS, by telephone on June 23, 2006. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 350 tons DISTRIBUTION AL and MS
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Tucker Milling, LLC Tm 32% Sinking Fish Grower, #2680-Pellet, 50 lb. bags, Recall # V-121-6;
b) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder Pellet, 50 lb. bags, Recall # V-122-6;
c) Tucker Milling, LLC #31232 Game Bird Grower, 50 lb. bags, Recall # V-123-6;
d) Tucker Milling, LLC 31227-Crumble, Game Bird Starter, BMD Medicated, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-124-6;
e) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-125-6;
f) Tucker Milling, LLC #30230, 30 % Turkey Starter, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-126-6;
g) Tucker Milling, LLC #30116, TM Broiler Finisher, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-127-6
CODE All products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/20/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Tucker Milling LLC, Guntersville, AL, by telephone and visit on June 20, 2006, and by letter on June 23, 2006. Manufacturer: H. J. Baker and Brothers Inc., Stamford, CT. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON Poultry and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein were not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 7,541-50 lb bags
DISTRIBUTION AL, GA, MS, and TN
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006
###
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL AL AND FL VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125 TONS
Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated, net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6; d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated, Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend, Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted, Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020, Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated, Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs, Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED, net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs, Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs, Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006 RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125 tons DISTRIBUTION AL and FL
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22 71.248.128.67
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals, Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg), Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE a) Bulk b) None c) Bulk d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and by press release on June 16, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION Nationwide
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006
###
Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress FY 2007 - 2nd Half
Two Texas Companies Sentenced and Fined for Misbranding Meat Products In April 2007, two closely held and related Texas companies pled guilty in Federal court and were sentenced to 12 months of probation and ordered to pay $10,250 in fines for misbranding meat products. One of the companies sold adulterated meat products to a retail store in New Mexico. Additionally, portions of the invoices failed to properly and consistently identify the meat products as being from cattle more than 30 months old at time of slaughter. This information is required to be disclosed because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow disease") concerns. No adulterated meat reached consumers.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
FOIA REQUEST FEED RECALL 2009 Product may have contained prohibited materials Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE $$$
*** PLEASE SEE THIS URGENT UPDATE ON CWD AND FEED ANIMAL PROTEIN ***
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2003-D-0432 (formerly 03D-0186) Use of Material from Deer and Elk in Animal Feed ***UPDATED MARCH 2016*** Singeltary Submission
SEE MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS AFER MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS ;
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0764 for Animal Feed Regulatory Program Standards Singeltary Comment Submission
16 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE DECEMBER 2013 UPDATE
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE DECEMBER 2014 BSE TSE PRION
17 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997
Monday, October 26, 2015
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE October 2015
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2017
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE 2016 to 2017 BSE TSE PRION
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2017
USDA announces Alabama case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Alabama
2012 ATYPICAL L-TYPE BASE BSE TSE PRION CALIFORNIA ‘confirmed’ Saturday, August 4, 2012
*** Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012
2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006
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
Thursday, July 24, 2014
*** Protocol for further laboratory investigations into the distribution of infectivity of Atypical BSE SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF EFSA New protocol for Atypical BSE investigations
Thursday, July 24, 2014
*** Protocol for further laboratory investigations into the distribution of infectivity of Atypical BSE SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF EFSA New protocol for Atypical BSE investigations
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)
2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015
Former Ag Secretary Ann Veneman talks women in agriculture and we talk mad cow disease USDA and what really happened
Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy Results from Feeding Infected Cattle
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...
Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy Results from Feeding Infected Cattle 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...
In Confidence - Perceptions of unconventional slow virus diseases of animals in the USA - APRIL-MAY 1989 - G A H Wells 3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach was to accord it a very low profile indeed. Dr. A Thiermann showed the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought this was a fanatical incident to be avoided in the US at all costs. ...
The occurrence of CWD must be viewed against the contest of the locations in which it occurred. It was an incidental and unwelcome complication of the respective wildlife research programmes. Despite it’s subsequent recognition as a new disease of cervids, therefore justifying direct investigation, no specific research funding was forthcoming. The USDA veiwed it as a wildlife problem and consequently not their province! ...page 26.
*** Spraker suggested an interesting explanation for the occurrence of CWD. The deer pens at the Foot Hills Campus were built some 30-40 years ago by a Dr. Bob Davis. At or abut that time, allegedly, some scrapie work was conducted at this site. When deer were introduced to the pens they occupied ground that had previously been occupied by sheep.
Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were informed by the CDFA Animal Health Safety Service (AHSS) Division that a brain sample collected from a dead cow at the Baker Commodities rendering transfer station in Hanford, California tested positive for L-type atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). While cases of classical BSE have been clearly linked to the use of contaminated meat and bone meal (MBM) as an ingredient in cattle feed, the origin of atypical strains of BSE is unknown. Given the scientific uncertainty about the origin of the L-type strain of BSE, FDA and CDFA conducted a feed investigation to try to determine if any feed supplied to the index premises since the birth of the index cow could have been manufactured with or cross-contaminated by ingredients that are prohibited for use in feed for ruminant animals.
FDA published BSE feed regulations in 1997 and 2008 to protect against cattle exposure to the BSE agent through animal feed. The 1997 “feed ban” (21 CFR 589.2000) prohibits feeding mammalian protein, with certain exceptions such as for milk products and blood products, to ruminants. The 2008 “enhanced feed rule” (21 CFR 589.2001) addresses concerns that the 1997 rule might not completely eliminate the potential for cattle to be exposed to infectivity as a result of cross-contamination during feed manufacturing or distribution, or as a result of on-farm misfeeding of swine feed, poultry feed, or pet food to cattle. To further reduce the BSE risks associated with cross-contamination and on-farm misfeeding, the 2008 rule banned the use of the highest risk cattle tissues - the brain and spinal cord from cattle 30 months of age and older - in all animal feed.
To investigate whether the BSE positive cow in California had access to feed ingredients containing bovine origin MBM, the CDFA and the FDA visited the index dairy farm where they evaluated the dairy farm’s compliance with BSE feed regulations, obtained the feeding history of the index cow since her birth in September 2001 to the present, and identified all feed suppliers to those premises where the cow had resided since birth. An inspection for compliance with 21 CFR 589.2000 and 589.2001 (a BSE inspection) was then conducted at each of the feed suppliers identified. In addition, inspection reports from all previous inspections at the identified feed firms were reviewed to determine each firm’s history of using prohibited material in feed manufacturing, as well as each firm’s history of compliance with FDA’s BSE feed regulations. Particular attention was focused on controls in place at each facility to prevent cross contamination.
Review of the BSE inspection histories found that compliance with BSE feed regulations was excellent. None of the facilities had used prohibited material in their feed manufacturing during the entire period of interest. All historical BSE inspections at the 12 feed suppliers were NAI (no action indicated) for all inspections conducted over the period of interest. One facility had minor violations (VAI, or voluntary action indicated) for medicated feed good manufacturing practices (GMP) deficiencies. Prior to the period of interest, one firm was OAI for an April 2000 inspection because the firm had inadequate cleanout procedures and failed to label product potentially containing prohibited material with the required caution statement “do not feed to cattle or other ruminants”. The next inspection of that facility, in May 2001 (6 months before the date of birth of the index cow), found that the facility no longer used prohibited material.
Although none of the facilities had used prohibited material in their feed manufacturing during the entire period of interest, one facility distributed prohibited material but did not use it to manufacture feeds. This facility maintained separation between its manufactured feed and products for distribution that contained prohibited material. Six facilities used only vegetable origin protein sources such as whole and rolled corn, soybean meal, canola meal, distillers dried grain, corn gluten, wheat, almond hulls, rolled barley, cottonseed, sunflower meal, and beet pulp. Five facilities used blood meal (one of the five used only porcine origin blood meal). Two used feather meal, two used fish meal, and one used porcine origin MBM. One facility processed and manufactured with poultry waste. Three facilities distributed pet food or sold it to retail customers. All three of these facilities kept the pet food in an area of the facility separated from feed manufacturing, with posted signs saying “do not feed to cattle or other ruminants.”
The reporting form used to conduct BSE inspections requires the investigator to verify that facilities that do not use prohibited material have safeguards in place to assure that the facility does not receive prohibited material. All 12 firms had procedures in place for obtaining written certification or other assurances from suppliers that products contained no prohibited material. Written procedures at each facility also required that plant personnel review labels of incoming product for prohibited ingredients. The inspection reports showed that each feed supplier also had appropriate procedures for ensuring that vehicles used to haul incoming or outgoing product had either not previously hauled product containing prohibited material, or had been properly cleaned.
This feed investigation found that no feed suppliers to the index premises processed with prohibited material during the period of interest, that all feed facilities obtained appropriate assurances from their suppliers that incoming ingredients did not contain prohibited material, and that vehicle inspections and/or driver certifications were used by all facilities to ensure that products were not transported in vehicles that had hauled product containing prohibited material in the previous load. Based on these findings, the feed investigation team did not identify any conditions where feed ingredients supplied to the index premises had been manufactured with prohibited material, or where feed suppliers to the index premises did not have adequate safeguards in place to prevent cross-contamination during feed manufacture, storage, or transportation.
LMAO !!!
Monday, January 09, 2017
Oral Transmission of L-Type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Agent among Cattle
CDC Volume 23, Number 2—February 2017
*** Consumption of L-BSE–contaminated feed may pose a risk for oral transmission of the disease agent to cattle.
SPONTANEOUS ATYPICAL BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
***Moreover, sporadic disease has never been observed in breeding colonies or primate research laboratories, most notably among hundreds of animals over several decades of study at the National Institutes of Health25, and in nearly twenty older animals continuously housed in our own facility.***
***> 2020 Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE Prion End of Year Report
CJD FOUNDATION VIRTUAL CONFERENCE CJD Foundation Research Grant Recipient Reports Panel 2 Nov 3, 2020
zoonotic potential of PMCA-adapted CWD PrP 96SS inoculum
4 different CWD strains, and these 4 strains have different potential to induce any folding of the human prion protein.
***> PIGS, WILD BOAR, CWD <***
***> POPULATIONS OF WILD BOARS IN THE UNITED STATES INCREASING SUPSTANTUALLY AND IN MANY AREAS WE CAN SEE A HIGH DENSITY OF WILD BOARS AND HIGH INCIDENT OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
HYPOTHOSIS AND SPECIFIC AIMS
HYPOTHOSIS
BSE, SCRAPIE, AND CWD, EXPOSED DOMESTIC PIGS ACCUMULATE DIFFERENT QUANTITIES AND STRAINS OF PRIONS IN PERIPHERAL TISSUES, EACH ONE OF THEM WITH PARTICULAR ZOONOTIC POTENTIALS
Final Report – CJD Foundation Grant Program A.
Project Title: Systematic evaluation of the zoonotic potential of different CWD isolates. Principal Investigator: Rodrigo Morales, PhD.
Systematic evaluation of the zoonotic potential of different CWD isolates. Rodrigo Morales, PhD Assistant Professor Protein Misfolding Disorders lab Mitchell Center for Alzheimer’s disease and Related Brain Disorders Department of Neurology University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Washington DC. July 14th, 2018
Conclusions and Future Directions • We have developed a highly sensitive and specific CWD-PMCA platform to be used as a diagnostic tool. • Current PMCA set up allow us to mimic relevant prion inter-species transmission events. • Polymorphic changes at position 96 of the prion protein apparently alter strain properties and, consequently, the zoonotic potential of CWD isolates. • Inter-species and inter-polymorphic PrPC → PrPSc conversions further increase the spectrum of CWD isolates possibly present in nature. • CWD prions generated in 96SS PrPC substrate apparently have greater inter-species transmission potentials. • Future experiments will explore the zoonotic potential of CWD prions along different adaptation scenarios, including inter-species and inter-polymorphic.
Research Project: TRANSMISSION, DIFFERENTIATION, AND PATHOBIOLOGY OF TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: Disease-associated prion protein detected in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged with the agent of chronic wasting disease
Author item MOORE, SARAH - Orise Fellow item Kunkle, Robert item KONDRU, NAVEEN - Iowa State University item MANNE, SIREESHA - Iowa State University item SMITH, JODI - Iowa State University item KANTHASAMY, ANUMANTHA - Iowa State University item WEST GREENLEE, M - Iowa State University item Greenlee, Justin Submitted to: Prion Publication Type: Abstract Only Publication Acceptance Date: 3/15/2017 Publication Date: N/A Citation: N/A Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: Aims: Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a naturally-occurring, fatal neurodegenerative disease of cervids. We previously demonstrated that disease-associated prion protein (PrPSc) can be detected in the brain and retina from pigs challenged intracranially or orally with the CWD agent. In that study, neurological signs consistent with prion disease were observed only in one pig: an intracranially challenged pig that was euthanized at 64 months post-challenge. The purpose of this study was to use an antigen-capture immunoassay (EIA) and real-time quaking-induced conversion (QuIC) to determine whether PrPSc is present in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged with the CWD agent.
Methods: At two months of age, crossbred pigs were challenged by the intracranial route (n=20), oral route (n=19), or were left unchallenged (n=9). At approximately 6 months of age, the time at which commercial pigs reach market weight, half of the pigs in each group were culled (<6 month challenge groups). The remaining pigs (>6 month challenge groups) were allowed to incubate for up to 73 months post challenge (mpc). The retropharyngeal lymph node (RPLN) was screened for the presence of PrPSc by EIA and immunohistochemistry (IHC). The RPLN, palatine tonsil, and mesenteric lymph node (MLN) from 6-7 pigs per challenge group were also tested using EIA and QuIC.
Results: PrPSc was not detected by EIA and IHC in any RPLNs. All tonsils and MLNs were negative by IHC, though the MLN from one pig in the oral <6 month group was positive by EIA. PrPSc was detected by QuIC in at least one of the lymphoid tissues examined in 5/6 pigs in the intracranial <6 months group, 6/7 intracranial >6 months group, 5/6 pigs in the oral <6 months group, and 4/6 oral >6 months group. Overall, the MLN was positive in 14/19 (74%) of samples examined, the RPLN in 8/18 (44%), and the tonsil in 10/25 (40%).
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PrPSc accumulates in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged intracranially or orally with the CWD agent, and can be detected as early as 4 months after challenge. CWD-infected pigs rarely develop clinical disease and if they do, they do so after a long incubation period. This raises the possibility that CWD-infected pigs could shed prions into their environment long before they develop clinical disease. Furthermore, lymphoid tissues from CWD-infected pigs could present a potential source of CWD infectivity in the animal and human food chains.
Research Project: Pathobiology, Genetics, and Detection of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: The agent of chronic wasting disease from pigs is infectious in transgenic mice expressing human PRNP
Author item MOORE, S - Orise Fellow item Kokemuller, Robyn item WEST-GREENLEE, M - Iowa State University item BALKEMA-BUSCHMANN, ANNE - Friedrich-Loeffler-institut item GROSCHUP, MARTIN - Friedrich-Loeffler-institut item Greenlee, Justin Submitted to: Prion Publication Type: Abstract Only Publication Acceptance Date: 5/10/2018 Publication Date: 5/22/2018 Citation: Moore, S.J., Kokemuller, R.D., West-Greenlee, M.H., Balkema-Buschmann, A., Groschup, M.H., Greenlee, J.J. 2018. The agent of chronic wasting disease from pigs is infectious in transgenic mice expressing human PRNP. Prion 2018, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, May 22-25, 2018. Paper No. WA15, page 44.
Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: We have previously shown that the chronic wasting disease (CWD) agent from white-tailed deer can be transmitted to domestic pigs via intracranial or oral inoculation although with low attack rates and restricted PrPSc accumulation. The objective of this study was to assess the potential for cross-species transmission of pig-passaged CWD using bioassay in transgenic mice. Transgenic mice expressing human (Tg40), bovine (TgBovXV) or porcine (Tg002) PRNP were inoculated intracranially with 1% brain homogenate from a pig that had been intracranially inoculated with a pool of CWD from white-tailed deer. This pig developed neurological clinical signs, was euthanized at 64 months post-inoculation, and PrPSc was detected in the brain. Mice were monitored daily for clinical signs of disease until the end of the study. Mice were considered positive if PrPSc was detected in the brain using an enzyme immunoassay (EIA). In transgenic mice expressing porcine prion protein the average incubation period was 167 days post-inoculation (dpi) and 3/27 mice were EIA positive (attack rate = 11%). All 3 mice were found dead and clinical signs were not noted prior to death. One transgenic mouse expressing bovine prion protein was euthanized due to excessive scratching at 617 dpi and 2 mice culled at the end of the study at 700 dpi were EIA positive resulting in an overall attack rate of 3/16 (19%). None of the transgenic mice expressing human prion protein that died or were euthanized up to 769 dpi were EIA positive and at study end point at 800 dpi 2 mice had positive EIA results (overall attack rate = 2/20 = 10%). The EIA optical density (OD) readings for all positive mice were at the lower end of the reference range (positive mice range, OD = 0.266-0.438; test positive reference range, OD = 0.250-4.000). To the authors’ knowledge, cervid-derived CWD isolates have not been successfully transmitted to transgenic mice expressing human prion protein. The successful transmission of pig-passaged CWD to Tg40 mice reported here suggests that passage of the CWD agent through pigs results in a change of the transmission characteristics which reduces the transmission barrier of Tg40 mice to the CWD agent. If this biological behavior is recapitulated in the original host species, passage of the CWD agent through pigs could potentially lead to increased pathogenicity of the CWD agent in humans.
cwd scrapie pigs oral routes
***> However, at 51 months of incubation or greater, 5 animals were positive by one or more diagnostic methods. Furthermore, positive bioassay results were obtained from all inoculated groups (oral and intracranial; market weight and end of study) suggesting that swine are potential hosts for the agent of scrapie. <***
>*** Although the current U.S. feed ban is based on keeping tissues from TSE infected cattle from contaminating animal feed, swine rations in the U.S. could contain animal derived components including materials from scrapie infected sheep and goats. These results indicating the susceptibility of pigs to sheep scrapie, coupled with the limitations of the current feed ban, indicates that a revision of the feed ban may be necessary to protect swine production and potentially human health. <***
***> Results: PrPSc was not detected by EIA and IHC in any RPLNs. All tonsils and MLNs were negative by IHC, though the MLN from one pig in the oral <6 month group was positive by EIA. PrPSc was detected by QuIC in at least one of the lymphoid tissues examined in 5/6 pigs in the intracranial <6 months group, 6/7 intracranial >6 months group, 5/6 pigs in the oral <6 months group, and 4/6 oral >6 months group. Overall, the MLN was positive in 14/19 (74%) of samples examined, the RPLN in 8/18 (44%), and the tonsil in 10/25 (40%).
***> Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PrPSc accumulates in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged intracranially or orally with the CWD agent, and can be detected as early as 4 months after challenge. CWD-infected pigs rarely develop clinical disease and if they do, they do so after a long incubation period. This raises the possibility that CWD-infected pigs could shed prions into their environment long before they develop clinical disease. Furthermore, lymphoid tissues from CWD-infected pigs could present a potential source of CWD infectivity in the animal and human food chains.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2020
***> REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE OIE SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION FOR ANIMAL DISEASES Paris, 9–13 September 2019 BSE, TSE, PRION
see updated concerns with atypical BSE from feed and zoonosis...terry
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2020
***> Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE Prion Cervid State by State and Global Update November 2020
Monday, November 30, 2020
Tunisia has become the second country after Algeria to detect a case of CPD within a year
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020
The European Union summary report on surveillance for the presence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in 2019 First published 17 November 2020
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2020
EFSA Annual report of the Scientific Network on BSE-TSE 2020 Singeltary Submission
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2020
EFSA Scientific Opinion Potential BSE risk posed by the use of ruminant collagen and gelatine in feed for non‐ruminant farmed animals
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2020
EFSA Evaluation of public and animal health risks in case of a delayed post-mortem inspection in ungulates EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) ADOPTED: 21 October 2020
i wonder if a 7 month delay on a suspect BSE case in Texas is too long, on a 48 hour turnaround, asking for a friend???
WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2019
Incomplete inactivation of atypical scrapie following recommended autoclave decontamination procedures USDA HERE'S YOUR SIGN!
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2020
EFSA Annual report of the Scientific Network on BSE-TSE 2020 Singeltary Submission
2.3.2. New evidence on the zoonotic potential of atypical BSE and atypical scrapie prion strains
2.3.2. New evidence on the zoonotic potential of atypical BSE and atypical scrapie prion strains
Olivier Andreoletti, INRA Research Director, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) – École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse (ENVT), invited speaker, presented the results of two recently published scientific articles of interest, of which he is co-author: ‘Radical Change in Zoonotic Abilities of Atypical BSE Prion Strains as Evidenced by Crossing of Sheep Species Barrier in Transgenic Mice’ (MarinMoreno et al., 2020) and ‘The emergence of classical BSE from atypical/Nor98 scrapie’ (Huor et al., 2019).
In the first experimental study, H-type and L-type BSE were inoculated into transgenic mice expressing all three genotypes of the human PRNP at codon 129 and into adapted into ARQ and VRQ transgenic sheep mice. The results showed the alterations of the capacities to cross the human barrier species (mouse model) and emergence of sporadic CJD agents in Hu PrP expressing mice: type 2 sCJD in homozygous TgVal129 VRQ-passaged L-BSE, and type 1 sCJD in homozygous TgVal 129 and TgMet129 VRQ-passaged H-BSE.
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2020
Bovine adapted transmissible mink encephalopathy is similar to L-BSE after passage through sheep with the VRQ/VRQ genotype but not VRQ/ARQ
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2020
The emergence of classical BSE from atypical/ Nor98 scrapie
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2020
Scrapie TSE Prion Zoonosis Zoonotic, what if?
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2020
Sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease sCJD and Human TSE Prion Annual Report December 14, 2020
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
