Export figures on a United States Government website suggest that country has illegally exported its beef here, despite trade bans due to mad cow disease.
The US Department of Agriculture site lists a range of beef commodities, fresh and frozen, that the US has exported to Australia since 2003, even though a ban was imposed on its beef following a BSE outbreak in North America that year.
But Grant Pettrie, a USDA agricultural counsellor at the US Embassy in Australia, says the only beef sent here is that sourced from other countries approved for export and processed in the United States.
He says he can guarantee that no US beef has entered Australia since the ban.
"The reason I can be 100 per cent sure of that is the systems that are in place between the United States and Australia," he says.
"The United States Department of Agriculture has to sign an export certificate stating that the product meets the standards of the importing country and that is signed by a USDA veterinarian."
A spokesperson for the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry says no import permits have been issued for fresh, chilled, or frozen beef from United States.
The department says figures on overseas websites do not always accurately reflect import shipments which arrive in Australia for several reasons, including mistakes on paperwork, diversion of shipments and mis-classification.
>>>The department says figures on overseas websites do not always accurately reflect import shipments which arrive in Australia for several reasons, including mistakes on paperwork, diversion of shipments and mis-classification. <<<
IF that's the case, then they have a hell of a lot of mistakes, diversion of shipments, and mis-classification. ...TSS
Subject: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Israel $ more of the infamous 'non-species coding system'
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:23:03 -0700
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Docket APHIS-2007-0033 Docket Title Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Toxin List Docket Type Rulemaking APHIS-2007-0033-0001
greetings List members,
MORE OF THE INFAMOUS USA NON-SPECIES CODING SYSTEM.
as long as the exporting country and the importing country know not what they are exporting (play dumb/stupid), this non-species coding system allows potential BSE/TSE materials to be imported and exported freely and legally...
What are the U.S. imports of affected animals or animal products from Israel ?
The U.S. imported no live ruminants or ruminant meat from Israel since 1999. In 1999 a small amount of non-species specific meat and offal was imported and a small amount of fetal bovine serum (FBS) was also imported. FBS is considered to have a relatively low risk of transmitting BSE. Other imports from Israel during the period 1998-2001 included non-species specific preparations used in animal feeds and other non-food products of unspecified animals. For the category "preparations used in animal feeding, NESOI" that was imported into the U.S., it is possible that bovine meat or bovine byproducts could have been included in this category. However, the US Food and Drug Administration prohibits feeding of meat-and-bone meal to ruminants in the U.S.
Docket: 02N-0276 - Bioterrorism Preparedness; Registration of Food Facilities, Section 305 Comment Number: EC-254 [TSS SUBMISSION]
Greetings list members, i just cannot accept this;
23 kg of meat in a suitcase (suitcase bomb...TSS)
The data do not provide a species of origin code for these
products, therefore they may not contain any ruminant product.
what kind of statement is this? how stupid do they think we are?
it could also very well mean that _all_ of it was ruminant based products !
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA
Saturday, June 19, 2010
U.S. DENIED UPGRADED BSE STATUS FROM OIE
U.S. denied upgraded BSE status from OIE
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
AUSTRALIAN QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSESS BSE RISK (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2009 and USA export risk factor for BSE to Australia
(SEE LISTING OF BEEF PRODUCT SHIPPED FROM THE USA TO AUSTRALIA)
DAMNING TESTIMONY FROM STANLEY PRUSINER THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNER ON PRIONS SPEAKING ABOUT ANN VENEMAN
''they don't wanna know, the dont' care'' ... "nothing else matters''
May 20, 2004 - News reports detail cases of the USDA granting exemptions to certain U.S. beef-processing companies, allowing these companies to import ground beef and other processed beef from Canada. The import of such Canadian beef products is supposed to have been banned by USDA.
May 20, 2004 - Senator Conrad urges President Bush to ask for the resignation of Secretary Veneman following news reports that the USDA had ignored its own ban on the import of Canadian beef. "It now appears that the USDA has secretly and selectively violated its own publicly announced ban on the importation of processed beef from Canada," Senator Conrad wrote in a letter to President Bush. "In fact, the report is so damaging to the credibility and integrity of the USDA that I believe you should ask the Secretary of Agriculture to resign."
Oct. 1, 2004 - Senator Conrad writes Secretary Veneman to express his concern over reports indicating the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has determined that livestock feed produced from a rendered Canadian cow that had mad cow was sold and possibly fed to other cattle. The report also notes that the CFIA is not enforcing standards consistent with the recommendations of the scientific community to ban the use of specified risk material, a primary way by which mad cow is transmitted, in livestock feed and control the potential for feed contamination.
VERY DISTURBING DATA ;
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (“Mad Cow Disease”) and Canadian Beef Imports
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”) is a degenerative, fatal disease affecting the nervous system in cattle. In May 2003, BSE was confirmed in a cow in Alberta, Canada — the first known native North American case. In December 2003, BSE was confirmed in a Canadian-born cow in Washington State — the first known U.S. occurrence. On January 2 and 11, 2005, Canada announced two more cases of BSE, also in Alberta cows. As the 2003 cases emerged, the Administration undertook a number of steps designed to strengthen U.S. BSE protections. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) at one point in 2003 had banned all Canadian beef imports, but several months later, began to gradually reopen the border to some of them. The method by which it eased its initial Canadian beef ban raised concerns among some lawmakers, and has been one of a number of BSE-related issues of interest to Congress. Specifically, shortly after the May 2003 Canadian BSE discovery, USDA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register prohibiting the importation of cattle and other ruminants and ruminant products from Canada. Then in August 2003, using its authority to permit imports from BSE countries “in specific cases,” USDA began to relax this prohibition by allowing the importation of certain products, including boneless beef from animals under 30 months old, that it considers to be of much lower risk for BSE contamination. After USDA acted on several subsequent occasions to expand the types of permitted products beyond those announced in August 2003, and to ease the conditions for their entry into the United States, a federal judge in April 2004 halted the expansion. He concluded that USDA had not followed rulemaking procedures as spelled out in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The judge noted, among other things, that import restrictions were being relaxed “at the very same time when USDA is in the middle of a rulemaking to determine whether to take such a step.” The judge was referring to a November 4, 2003, proposed rule that would allow entry of additional types of Canadian beef, other ruminant products, including younger cattle. After the court’s ruling, USDA officials agreed to limit bovine imports only to those they had approved for entry in August 2003, until after a final rule could be published. USDA published this rule in final form on January 4, 2005, which was to take effect March 7, 2005. However, the same federal judge, responding to another lawsuit, granted a temporary injunction that blocks implementation of the rule. So, the timing and extent of additional Canadian cattle and beef imports remain unclear as of this writing. This report, which will be updated if significant developments ensue, provides a narrative chronology of selected U.S. actions after the discovery of BSE in North America, presenting in sequence this often confusing chain of events. The report focuses on USDA’s steps to reopen the U.S. border to Canadian beef, and concludes with a discussion of USDA’s actions in the context of APA rulemaking procedures.
USDA Allowed Canadian Beef In Despite Ban
By Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 20, 2004; Page A01
The Agriculture Department allowed American meatpackers to resume imports of ground and other "processed" beef from Canada last September, just weeks after it publicly reaffirmed its ban on importing those products because mad cow disease had been found in Canadian cattle.
In the next six months, a total of 33 million pounds of Canadian processed beef flowed to American consumers under a series of undisclosed permits the USDA issued to the meatpackers, permits that remained in effect until a federal judge intervened in April. The imports -- which involved ground beef, cubed beef and some types of sausage -- were allowed despite the August 2003 announcement by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman that she was extending an earlier ban on many types of Canadian beef.
Ever since the USDA briefly shut down all imports of Canadian beef in May 2003 after the mad cow discovery, the agency has been under great pressure from Canada and from large American meatpackers with plants across the border to loosen the restrictions, which hurt profits in both countries.
In her August announcement allowing importation of boneless beef to resume, Veneman said the risk that ground beef might contain the mad cow infection was too great to allow it in. She and her top deputies said ground beef imports would resume only after the agency completed a formal rulemaking process, with public debate.
According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, however, processed beef began reentering the United States from Canada the next month, and 33 million pounds were imported over the next six months, mostly through Buffalo. USDA spokeswoman Andrea McNally said the imports included ground beef, hamburger patties, pepperoni, and fat and meat "trim" from fancier cuts.
McNally said that although the border was officially closed to those beef products, the agency made exceptions when it "concluded that certain products would not pose a health risk because of risk mitigations" taken by meat processors. Those included accepting only cattle less than 30 months old and procedures to remove nervous-system tissue from carcasses before they were processed.
Although the risk to humans from eating infected beef is considered extremely low, the human form of the brain-destroying disease is fatal and incurable. Only about 150 people worldwide are known to have acquired the disease from eating infected beef, almost all of them in Europe.
According to McNally, importation of Canadian processed beef was stopped again late last month. That decision was triggered by a ruling by a federal judge in Montana that the USDA had, on April 19, improperly allowed an announced expansion of Canadian beef imports. At the time, there was no public discussion of the earlier permits.
The court ruling came in a lawsuit by the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, a group of cattle producers opposed to wide imports. Bill Bullard, the group's chief executive, said that after an attorney for the USDA acknowledged that the agency had been issuing permits for processed-beef imports, his group sought to find out more precisely what had been brought in and where.
Using statistics compiled by the Census Bureau and the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, Bullard said, they determined that 33 million pounds of processed beef were imported from Canada between September and March, along with 3.4 million pounds of bone-in beef and 440,000 pounds of tongue. None of those products were allowed under the restrictions Veneman announced in August.
"I think they've been irresponsible," Bullard said. "I think they have unnecessarily placed the U.S. cattle industry and consumers at risk."
While the 33 million pounds made a lot of hamburgers, pepperoni and hot dogs, they represent a tiny fraction of the beef eaten by Americans. Last year, more than 3 billion pounds of beef were imported.
Bullard said few in the meat industry seemed to know that Canadian processed beef and other products that were not on the officially sanctioned list had been coming into the United States since September. The USDA said it could not disclose which American importers had received the permits.
Mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is believed to be concentrated in the brain and central nervous system, and meat closer to those tissues is considered to be at highest risk. The least hazardous cuts are believed to be boneless ones containing only muscle. Bone-in cuts and ground beef are considered more hazardous.
Because the agent that causes the disease takes a long time to become active and dangerous, meat from animals younger than 30 months is believed to be safe.
In his ruling against the USDA, U.S. District Judge Richard F. Cebull wrote that the agency appeared to be ignoring its own rules and pronouncements.
"The Court is concerned by the manner in which, according to counsel for USDA, USDA has been authorizing imports of virtually all edible bovine meat products, apparently through issuing individual permits, at a time when it was assuring the public that such authorization would take place through the rulemaking process," he wrote on April 26, when he issued a temporary restraining order against the agency.
Mad cow disease was first found last May in a cow in Alberta, and then in another Canadian-born cow that was slaughtered in Washington state in December.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
The imports were allowed despite the August 2003 announcement by Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman that she was extending an earlier ban on many types of Canadian beef. Ever since the USDA briefly halted all imports of Canadian beef in May 2003 after the mad cow discovery, the USDA has been under great pressure from Canada and from large American meatpackers with plants across the border to loosen the restrictions, which hurt profits in both countries. In her August announcement allowing importation of boneless beef to resume, Veneman said the risk that ground beef might contain mad cow infection was too great to allow it in. She and her top deputies said ground beef imports would resume only after the agency completed a formal process, with public debate. According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, however, processed beef began re-entering the United States from Canada the next month, and 33 million pounds were imported over the next six months. USDA spokeswoman Andrea McNally said that although the border was officially closed to those beef products, the agency made exceptions when it "concluded that certain products would not pose a health risk because of risk mitigations" taken by meat processors. Although the risk to humans from eating infected beef is considered extremely low, the human form of the brain-destroying disease is fatal and incurable. According to McNally, importation of Canadian processed beef was halted again late last month. That decision was triggered by a ruling by a federal judge in Montana that the USDA had, on April 19, improperly allowed an expansion of Canadian beef imports. The court ruling came in a lawsuit by the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, a group of cattle producers opposed to wide imports.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Accumulation of L-type Bovine Prions in Peripheral Nerve Tissues
Volume 16, Number 7–July 2010
To date the OIE/WAHO assumes that the human and animal health standards set out in the BSE chapter for classical BSE (C-Type) applies to all forms of BSE which include the H-type and L-type atypical forms. This assumption is scientifically not completely justified and accumulating evidence suggests that this may in fact not be the case. Molecular characterization and the spatial distribution pattern of histopathologic lesions and immunohistochemistry (IHC) signals are used to identify and characterize atypical BSE. Both the L-type and H-type atypical cases display significant differences in the conformation and spatial accumulation of the disease associated prion protein (PrPSc) in brains of afflicted cattle. Transmission studies in bovine transgenic and wild type mouse models support that the atypical BSE types might be unique strains because they have different incubation times and lesion profiles when compared to C-type BSE. When L-type BSE was inoculated into ovine transgenic mice and Syrian hamster the resulting molecular fingerprint had changed, either in the first or a subsequent passage, from L-type into C-type BSE. In addition, non-human primates are specifically susceptible for atypical BSE as demonstrated by an approximately 50% shortened incubation time for L-type BSE as compared to C-type. Considering the current scientific information available, it cannot be assumed that these different BSE types pose the same human health risks as C-type BSE or that these risks are mitigated by the same protective measures.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Atypical BSE in Cattle
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
re-Freedom of Information Act Project Number 3625-32000-086-05, Study of Atypical BSE UPDATE July 28, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Seven main threats for the future linked to prions