Posted on 03/26/2006 6:45:30 AM PST by Amelia
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Political news
March 23, 2006, 2:36PM
By LIBBY QUAID AP Food and Farm Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A Kansas meatpacker sued the government on Thursday for refusing to let the company test for mad cow disease in every animal it slaughters.
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef says it has Japanese customers who want comprehensive testing. The Agriculture Department threatened criminal prosecution if Creekstone did the tests, according to the company's lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.
[snip]
It would cost about $20 per animal to do the tests, adding about 10 cents per pound to the cost of meat, according to Stewart.
Japan tests nearly all its cattle for mad cow disease. While individual companies there may want more testing in the U.S., Japan's government is not asking the U.S. to do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
What is a meatpacker?
Check this out (Oprah's report on mad cow, from 1996):
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/television/oprah_transcript.html
Howard:
Absolutely, and what we're looking at right now is we're following exactly the same path that they followed in England. Ten years of dealing with it as public relations rather than doing something substantial about it. 100,000 cows per year in the United States are fine at night, dead in the morning. The majority of those cows are rounded up, ground up, fed back to other cows. If only one of them has Mad Cow Disease, has the potential to effect thousands. Remember today, the United States, 14% of all cows by volume are ground up, turned into feed, and fed back to other animals
lol. Love your tag line.
The problem is that BIG time meat packers, the kind that make huge political donations, don't want to incur the extra cost, even if they can raise their prices, which could lower demand for their product.
Even so, there is NO downside to the people in charge. Call a commission, release a study, get elected again next time. Guaranteed.
Sure you can have your 'mad cow'...
But keep your paws...of my 'daffy duck'
Here 'ya go:
Private companies certified by the department make screening tests used to detect mad cow disease. The department says it has sole authority over the sale and use of the tests.
BTW...CWD has been found in the blood of white tailed deer
not just in CS fluid....
Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 6]
[Revised as of April 1, 2005]
[CITE: 21CFR589.2000]
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER E--ANIMAL DRUGS, FEEDS, AND RELATED PRODUCTS
PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
Subpart B--Listing of Specific Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed Sec. 589.2000 Animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed.
(a) Definitions--(1) Protein derived from mammalian tissues means any protein-containing portion of mammalian animals, excluding: Blood and blood products; gelatin; inspected meat products which have been cooked and offered for human food and further heat processed for feed (such as plate waste and used cellulosic food casings); milk products (milk and milk proteins); and any product whose only mammalian protein consists entirely of porcine or equine protein.
(2) Renderer means any firm or individual that processes slaughter byproducts, animals unfit for human consumption, or meat scraps. The term includes persons who collect such materials and subject them to minimal processing, or distribute them to firms other than renderers (as defined here) whose intended use for the products may include animal feed. The term includes renderers that also blend animal protein products.
(3) Blender means any firm or individual which obtains processed animal protein from more than one source or from more than one species, and subsequently mixes (blends) or redistributes an animal protein product.
(4) Feed manufacturer includes manufacturers of complete and intermediate feeds intended for animals, and includes on-farm in addition to off-farm feed manufacturing and mixing operations.
(5) Nonmammalian protein includes proteins from nonmammalian animals.
(6) Distributor includes persons who distribute or transport feeds or feed ingredients intended for animals.
(7) Ruminant includes any member of the order of animals which has a stomach with four chambers (rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum) through which feed passes in digestion. The order includes, but is not limited to, cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, deer, elk, and antelopes.
(b) Food additive status. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that protein derived from mammalian tissues for use in ruminant feed is a food additive subject to section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). The use or intended use in ruminant feed of any material that contains protein derived from mammalian tissues causes the feed to be adulterated and in violation of the act, unless it is the subject of an effective notice of claimed investigational exemption for a food additive under 570.17 of this chapter.
(c) Requirements for renderers that are not included in paragraph (e) of this section. (1) Renderers that manufacture products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues and that are intended for use in animal feed shall take the following measures to ensure that materials identified in paragraph (b) of this section are not used in the feed of ruminants:
(i) Label the materials as follows: "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants"; and
(ii) Maintain records sufficient to track the materials throughout their receipt, processing, and distribution, and make the copies available for inspection and copying by the Food and Drug Administration.
(2) Renderers described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be exempted from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section if they:
(i) Use exclusively a manufacturing method that has been validated by the Food and Drug Administration to deactivate the agent that causes transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) and whose design has been made available to the public;
(ii) Use routinely a test method that has been validated by the Food and Drug Administration to detect the presence of the agent that causes TSE's and whose design has been made available to the public. Renderers whose products test positive for agents that cause TSE's must comply with paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section. Records of the test results shall be made available for inspection by the Food and Drug Administration; or
(iii) Use exclusively a method for controlling the manufacturing process that minimizes the risk of the TSE agent entering the product and whose design has been made available to the public and validated by the Food and Drug Administration.
(3) Renderers described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be exempted from the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section if they use a permanent method, approved by FDA, to make a mark indicating that the product contains or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissue. If the marking is by the use of an agent that cannot be detected on visual inspection, the renderer must use an agent whose presence can be detected by a method that has been validated by the Food and Drug Administration and whose design has been made available to the public.
(d) Requirements for protein blenders, feed manufacturers, and distributors that are not included in paragraph (e) of this section. (1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, and distributors that manufacture, blend, process, and distribute products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues shall comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(2) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, and distributors, shall be exempt from paragraphs (d)(1) of this section if they:
(i) Purchase animal products from renderers that certified compliance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section or purchase such materials from parties that certify that the materials were purchased from renderers that certified compliance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section; or
(ii) Comply with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section where appropriate.
(3) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, and distributors, shall be exempt from paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section if they:
(i) Purchase animal protein products that are marked in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section or purchase such materials from renderers that certified compliance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, or purchase such materials from parties that certify that the materials were purchased from renderers that certified compliance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section; or
(ii) Comply with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section where appropriate.
(4) Pet food products that are sold or are intended for sale at retail and feeds for nonruminant laboratory animals are exempt from the labeling requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. However, if the pet food products or feeds for nonruminant laboratory animals are sold or are intended for sale as distressed or salvage items, then such products shall be labeled in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as appropriate.
(5) Copies of certifications as described in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section, shall be made available for inspection and copying by the Food and Drug Administration.
(e) Requirements for persons that intend to separate mammalian and nonmammalian materials. (1) Renderers, protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors, and others that manufacture, process, blend and distribute both products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues or feeds containing such products, and protein products from other animal tissues or feeds containing such products, and that intend to keep those products separate shall:
(i) Comply with paragraphs (c)(1) or (d)(1) of this section as appropriate except that the labeling requirement shall apply only to products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues or feeds containing such products;
(ii) In the case of a renderer, obtain nonmammalian or pure porcine or pure equine materials only from single-species slaughter facilities;
(iii) Provide for measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination;
(A) Maintain separate equipment or facilities for the manufacture, processing, or blending of such materials; or
(B) Use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carry-over of products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants; and
(iv) Maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means, and specifying the procedures for separating products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissue from all other protein products from the time of receipt until the time of shipment.
(2) Renderers, blenders, feed manufacturers, and distributors will be exempted from applicable requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, if they meet the criteria for exemption under paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section, and (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section.
(f) Requirements for establishments and individuals that are responsible for feeding ruminant animals. Establishments and individuals that are responsible for feeding ruminant animals shall maintain copies of purchase invoices and labeling for all feeds containing animal protein products received, and make the copies available for inspection and copying by the Food and Drug Administration.
(g) Adulteration and misbranding. (1) Animal protein products, and feeds containing such products, that are not in compliance with paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section, excluding labeling requirements, will be deemed adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C) or 402(a)(4) of the act.
(2) Animal protein products, and feeds containing such products, that are not in compliance with the labeling requirements of paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section will be deemed misbranded under section 403(a)(1) or 403(f) of the act.
(h) Inspection; records retention. (1) Records that are to be made available for inspection and copying, as required by this section, shall be kept for a minimum of 1 year.
(2) Written procedures required by this section shall be made available for inspection and copying by the Food and Drug Administration.
[62 FR 30976, June 5, 1997]
Effective Date Note:
At 62 FR 30976, June 5, 1997, 589.2000 was added. Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section contains information collection and recordkeeping requirements and will not become effective until approval has been given by the Office of Management and Budget.
I've heard that also. Though CWD is not a problem (yet) in my area, the DNR has been testing. My harvest all came back negative.
March 16, 2006
House lawmakers talk about BSE testing, animal ID
USDA officials were on the hot seat Wednesday, as members of the House ag appropriations subcommittee grilled them about agency plans to cut back on BSE testing. Lawmakers also questioned USDA’s plans to implement a national animal ID system.
The discovery of BSE in an Alabama cow this week led some subcommittee members, and consumer groups, to urge continuing USDA’s expanded testing program. Since that program was put in place in June, 2004, about 652,000 high-risk cattle, and 21,000 normal cattle, have been tested.
USDA Acting Undersecretary Charles Lambert defended the cutback decision, saying, “By any standpoint of scientific validity, we’ve proved” that the U.S. has an extremely low incidence rate of BSE.
But subcommittee ranking member Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the program should not be cut back because USDA and the Food and Drug Administration haven’t completed other programs aimed at reducing the possibility of BSE.
“With no national animal ID system…(and) no final rule on animal feed, it is clear that now is not the time to decrease testing as you propose…fewer tests would inevitably reduce the effectiveness of a system that is already on shaky ground,” she said.
DeLauro also was unhappy over USDA’s performance on animal ID. USDA Secretary Mike Johanns has said the system was currently voluntary, but will be mandatory.
DeLauro asked Lambert if that were still the case. He said Johanns “has left open the possibility” that if voluntary participation isn’t high enough, a mandatory system could be imposed.
Dr. Ron DeHaven, administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, told DeLauro USDA believes market forces will eventually force the industry into a mandatory system. But, he said, USDA has the legal authority to make such a system mandatory.
Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) reported claims that state ag departments are using USDA grants for animal ID for other purposes, and then plan to impose fees for ID on the industry. He urged Lambert to monitor how states are using grant money.
http://www.lmaweb.com/infonews.html#1
Japan’s ag minister said Creekstone Farm’s suit against USDA won’t affect trade rules between the two nations. Creekstone Thursday filed suit to allow the firm to test all its cattle for BSE, which USDA opposes. However, Ag Minister Shoichi Nakagawa said Japan cannot give preferential treatment to Creekstone. Meanwhile, Creekstone CEO John Stewart said “more than five” U.S. packers are willing to test all their cattle for BSE to satisfy consumers. He would not identify the firms.
http://www.lmaweb.com/
Cases of BSE worldwide are declining, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said Thursday. Over the last three years, cases of BSE have been dropping about 50 percent yearly, the FAO said.
http://www.lmaweb.com/
Feds Unsure if Mad Cow Safeguards Followed
HE ASSOCIATED PRESS/WASHINGTON
By LIBBY QUAID
AP Food and Farm Writer
Feds unsure if mad cow safeguards followed
FEB. 2, 2006. Investigators could not determine whether beef slaughterhouses
and packing plants obeyed safeguards designed to keep mad cow disease from
reaching humans, an Agriculture Department audit found.
The audit, performed throughout 2005 and released Thursday, turned up a case
of mad cow disease last year in a Texas cow.
The department's inspector general didn't find that at-risk tissues --
brains, spinal cords and other nerve parts from older animals -- had entered
the food supply.
But investigators found it impossible to say whether slaughterhouses were
following the rules, according to the report.
The rules were made in response to the first U.S. case of mad cow disease,
in 2003. They say at-risk tissues must be removed when older animals are
slaughtered. Infection levels from mad cow disease are believed to rise with
age.
The Agriculture Department cited slaughterhouses or processing plants more
than 1,000 times in 2004 and 2005 for violating the rules.
A department official pointed out that's less than 1 percent of all
inspections. Those citations have been dropping, said Kenneth Petersen,
assistant administrator for the department's Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
Officials have already taken steps to better enforce the rules, said FSIS
administrator Barbara Masters.
"FSIS is confident it is successfully carrying out its mission to protect
public health," Masters said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.