Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

Pet Food Exported to Turkey from the United States (Alabama, Texas, Washington BANNED for BSE mad cow risk factor)

Posted Apr 09 2009 7:13pm
Pet Food Exported to Turkey from the United States

USDA has not agreed to the below requirements. Certification of pet food to Turkey is under negotiation. However, until an agreement is reached, the government of Turkey is requiring the following protocol. Exporters wishing to export to Turkey prior to agreement on a protocol must meet these requirements of the government of Turkey.

Ineligible products:

The following pet foods are not eligible for export to Turkey:


Pet food containing any ruminant origin ingredients (other than dairy or hides or skins) if that pet food is manufactured, labeled, packaged, or stored in Washington State or the State of Texas or the State of Alabama. Even if the ruminant origin ingredients are imported from a BSE free country, the pet food is banned.


Pet food containing US origin ruminant origin ingredients (other than dairy or hides or skins).


Pet food containing poultry (including egg) origin ingredients except for:

Pet food containing no poultry-origin ingredients other than those poultry-origin ingredients that have been heated to a minimum internal temperature of 70º C for 3.5 seconds.

Eligible products:

Turkey is believed to permit the import of the following pet food only:


Pet food containing no ruminant origin ingredients.


Pet food containing no ruminant origin ingredients except for dairy or hides or skins.


Pet food containing no ruminant origin ingredients except for those imported from countries recognized by Turkey as being free of BSE, IF this pet food is not processed in any way in Washington State or the State of Texas or the State of Alabama.


Pet food containing no poultry-origin ingredients.


Pet food containing no poultry-origin ingredients other than those poultry-origin ingredients that have been heated to a minimum internal temperature of 70º C for 3.5 seconds.

Certification Requirements

Pet food shipments must be accompanied by a VS Form 16-4 (MAR 2004 Version) with the following three exact items added to the “ADDITIONAL DECLARATION” area. The fourth statement is only required if Turkey has imposed an avian influenza ban on one of the U.S. states, otherwise it is optional. Go back to the general Turkey page and view “Important information regarding trade bans on poultry products” to determine if an avian influenza ban is in place.” (No attestations other than the below 3-4 may be included on the certificate. The statements may not be paraphrased or changed in any way.)

I. The statement “This office has on file a notarized affidavit from [insert manufacturer’s name here] verifying the accuracy of the statements below.”

II. One of the following statements:

OPTION A (for pet food that is not hermetically sealed)

The statement “The pet food was analyzed by a random sampling of at least five samples from each lot with the following standards:

Salmonella: absence in 25g: n = 5, c = 0, m = 0, M = 0, Enterobacteriaceae: n = 5, c = 2, m = 10, M = 300 in 1 gram;

Where:

n = number of samples to be tested, m = threshold value for the number of bacteria; the result is considered satisfactory if the number of bacteria in all samples does not exceed m, M = maximum value for the number of bacteria; the result is considered unsatisfactory if the number of bacteria in one or more samples is M or more, and c = number of samples the bacterial count of which may be between m and M, the sample still being considered acceptable if the bacterial count of the other samples is m or less.”

OR

OPTION B (for hermetically sealed pet food)

“In case of canned pet food, the pet food has been subjected to a heat treatment to a minimum Fc value of 3.”

III. One of the following 3 statements:

Option A (for pet food not containing any ruminant origin materials):

"Certified pet food does not contain any ruminant origin materials.

OR

Option B (for pet food containing no ruminant origin materials except for hides or skins):

"Certified pet food does not contain any ruminant origin materials except for [insert as appropriate: dairy or hides or skins]."

OR

Option C (for pet food containing ruminant origin ingredients other than hides and skins- which must be imported) "Certified pet food:

1. Was not manufactured in Washington State or the State of Texas or the State of Alabama;

AND

2. Does not contain any ruminant origin material [insert/complete as appropriate: except for dairy products, ruminant hides or skins, ________________originating in and imported from _____________ (insert country name).]"***

***Each ruminant origin item should be listed, and for those (except dairy and hides and skins) the country of origin should be detailed. This country must be one recognized by Turkey as free of BSE.

IV.

One of the following 2 statements:

Option A (for pet food either heated to a minimum internal temperature of 70º C for 1 second, or containing no poultry-origin ingredients other than those poultry ingredients that have been heated to a minimum internal temperature of 70º C for 1 second):

“All poultry origin ingredients in the pet food have been heated to a minimum of 70°C for a minimum of 3.5 seconds during the production process.”

OR

Option B (for pet food not containing any poultry origin materials):

“The pet food does not contain any ingredients derived from poultry.”

Note regarding laboratory results (Roman number II above).

Option A: Lab reports: In order for this statement to be included on the certificate, lot specific test reports must be presented to the APHIS Area Office endorsing the certificate with the certificate. Those reports may not be part of the certificate itself.



http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/vs/iregs/products/downloads/tu_pf_neg.pdf




Greetings,



CONSIDERING the two mad cows in TEXAS, the one that was highly suspect that got Wisk away to the renderer under strict orders to be done away with, with NO TEST AT ALL i.e. NTAA's, that mad cow was covered-up, and the other atypical H-BSE, that was almost cover-up too in a cloak of darkness, except for the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG, and after some 8 months, and much criticism and finger pointing of a cover-up, this case was finally proven to be a positive, confirmed H-BSE atypical case. Considering the other atypical H-BSE case in Alabama, no traceability of cohorts etc., considering all this, how can anyone blame Turkey, or any other Country from having the same ban ??? Considering the BSE GBR risk assessments of the USA, Canada, and Mexico, all of North America should be banned. BUT, thanks to the USDA, GW, and the OIE, you have the free trading of all strains of TSE globally, and it's legal now. nothing like sound 'junk science'. $$$



LET's look at why Turkey, and other countries should be worried ;


10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II___________________________________PRODUCTBulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling’s 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007CODECattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERPfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.REASONBlood 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 COMMERCE42,090 lbs. DISTRIBUTIONWI ___________________________________PRODUCTCustom 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-025-2007CODEThe firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURERRangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.REASONProducts 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 COMMERCE9,997,976 lbs.DISTRIBUTIONID and NV END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007 http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html

LET'S LOOK AT THE MAD COW FEED ''IN COMMERCE'' BY TONNAGE IN ALABAMA 2006, and some other in commerce in TEXAS i.e. the infamous Purina show at Gonzales Texas, and all it was, was show ;

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE P01-05 January 30, 2001 Print Media: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT

Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.

This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.

FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2001/new00752.html

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 Content-Type: text/plain Parts/Attachments: text/plain (558 lines)

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 ______________________________

PRODUCT a) Dairy feed, custom, Recall # V-134-6; b) Custom Dairy Feed with Monensin, Recall # V-135-6. CODE None. Bulk product RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Burkmann Feed, Greeneville, TN, by Telephone beginning on June 28, 2006. Manufacturer: H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL. Firm initiated recall is complete. REASON Possible contamination of dairy feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone meal. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 1,484 tons DISTRIBUTION TN and WV

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00968.html

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

______________________________

PRODUCT Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-115-6 CODE None RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Hiseville Feed & Seed Co., Hiseville, KY, by telephone and letter on or about July 14, 2006. FDA 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 Approximately 2,223 tons DISTRIBUTION KY

______________________________

PRODUCT Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-116-6 CODE None RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Rips Farm Center, Tollesboro, KY, by telephone and letter on July 14, 2006. FDA 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 1,220 tons DISTRIBUTION KY

______________________________

PRODUCT Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-117-6 CODE None RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Kentwood Co-op, Kentwood, LA, by telephone on June 27, 2006. FDA initiated recall is completed. REASON Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone meal. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 40 tons DISTRIBUTION LA and MS

______________________________

PRODUCT Bulk Dairy Feed, Recall V-118-6 CODE None RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Cal Maine Foods, Inc., Edwards, MS, by telephone on June 26, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete. REASON Possible contamination of animal feed ingredients, including ingredients that are used in feed for dairy animals, with ruminant derived meat and bone meal. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 7,150 tons DISTRIBUTION MS

______________________________

PRODUCT Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-119-6 CODE None RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Walthall County Co-op, Tylertown, MS, by telephone on June 26, 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 87 tons DISTRIBUTION MS

______________________________

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

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/2006/ENF00964.html

Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL MI MAMMALIAN PROTEIN VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 27,694,240 lbs

Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm PST

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

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html

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

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html

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

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00963.html

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

###

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2006/ENF00960.html

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

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5883d.htm

look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;

Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man.

snip...

BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%) 1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a similar PrPres concentration that was inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected orally with similar BSE brain inocula

Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa

It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf

2) Infectious dose:

To cattle: 1 gram of infected brain material (by oral ingestion)

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/bio/bseesbe.shtml

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement May 4, 2004 Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/new01061.html

ooops $



Saturday, February 21, 2009

Renderers say industry not prepared for FDA feed ban rule ??? WHAT, IT'S 2009 FOR PETE'S SAKE $$$


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/02/renderers-say-industry-not-prepared-for.h



Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Atypical BSE North America Update February 2009

Greetings,

Considering that Mad Cow disease of all documented phenotypes, either the c-BSE, or the atypical h-BSE and or the l-BSE, ALL of which have been documented in North America, how many more, who knows, but they seem to be throwing all there marbles in the pot now by calling the h-type BSE 'familial'. what happens if we come up with another strain ? kinda like the sporadic FFI, that's not familial, what's that all about ? considering the many different strains of the typical scrapie 20+, and then the atypical Nor-98 Scrapie, which the USA has documented 6 cases the last i heard, and the thought of more than one strain of CWD in deer and elk, where will the next year, 4 years, 8 years, and beyond take us in the world of human and animal Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy and 'sound science' in the USA ? WILL the New Administration see the enfamous enhanced bse surveillance program of 2004 for what it was, a fraud, and have a 'redo' ? WE can hope i suppose. ...TSS

Both of the BSE cases ascertained in the US native-born cattle were atypical cases (H-type), which contributed to the initial ambiguity of the diagnosis. 174, 185 In Canada, there have been 2 atypical BSE cases in addition to the 14 cases of the classic UK strain of BSE2: one was the H-type, and the other was of the L-type.198

snip...end

source :

Enhanced Abstract Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association January 1, 2009, Vol. 234, No. 1, Pages 59-72

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

Jane L. Harman, DVM, PhD; Christopher J. Silva, PhD

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/ref/10.2460/javma.234.1.59

Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:37 PM

"we have found that H-BSE can infect humans."

personal communication with Professor Kong. ...TSS


full text ;


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/02/atypical-bse-north-america-update.html



Risk of Introduction of BSE into Japan by the Historical Importation of Live Cattle from the United Kingdom http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2009/03/risk-of-introduction-of-bse-into-japan.html




SEE ATTEMPTED COVER-UP BEFORE THE END AROUND BY FONG ET AL OF THE O.I.G

The U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed June 29 that genetic testing had verified bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in a 12-year-old cow that was born and raised in a Texas beef cattle herd.

Subsequent epidemiological investigations resulted in the culling and testing of 67 adult animals from the index herd. Bio-Rad tests for BSE were conducted on all 67 animals by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa. All tests were negative.

On July 12, Texas officials lifted the quarantine on the source herd. At press time, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was tracing animals of the same age that had left the ranch.

Timeline

The BSE-positive animal was a Brahman-cross cow born and raised in a single Texas herd. The location of the ranch was not disclosed.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the 12-year-old cow was taken to a Texas auction market. Because of its condition, the cow was sent to Champion Pet Foods in Waco, Texas. The company produces several blends of dog food, primarily for the greyhound industry.

On Nov. 15, the animal arrived dead at Champion. Under procedures established by USDA's intensive surveillance program, a sample was sent to the USDA-approved Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Testing Laboratory (TVMDL) at Texas A&M University.

Between June 1, 2004, and June 1, 2005, TVMDL tested nearly 34,000 samples from Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas and Louisiana. They tested the sample from Champion on Nov. 19 using a Bio-Rad ELISA rapid test for BSE. Initial results were inconclusive.

Because of the inconclusive results, a representative from USDA took the entire carcass to TVMDL where it was incinerated. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) began tracing the animal and herd.

The sample was then sent to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory for further testing. Two Immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests were conducted and both were negative for BSE. At that point APHIS stopped their trace.

USDA scientists also ran an additional, experimental IHC "rapid" tissue fixation test for academic purposes. This test has not been approved internationally.

Some abnormalities were noted in the experimental test, but because the two approved tests came back negative, the results were not reported beyond the laboratory.

Monitoring by OIG

USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been monitoring implementation of the BSE expanded surveillance program and evaluating the following:

* Effectiveness of the surveillance program;

* Performance of BSE laboratories in complying with policies and procedures for conducting tests and reporting results;

* Enforcement of the ban on specified risk materials in meat products;

* Controls to prevent central nervous system tissue in advanced meat recovery products;

* Ante mortem condemnation procedures; and

* Procedures for obtaining brain tissue samples from condemned cattle.

While reviewing voluminous records, OIG auditors noticed conflicting test results on one sample-rapid inconclusive, IHC negative, experimental reactive.

Sample retested

At the recommendation of the Inspector General, the sample was retested during the week of June 5 with a second confirmatory test, the Western Blot. The results were reactive.

USDA scientists then conducted an additional IHC confirmatory test, using different antibodies from the November 2004 test. On Friday, June 10, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns publicly announced the results as a "weak positive."

On June 16 an official with USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratory hand-carried samples for further testing to the Veterinary Laboratory Agency (VLA) in Weybridge, England. Since 1991, the VLA has been a BSE reference laboratory for the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).

Experts from the Weybridge lab confirmed the accuracy of the results of USDA's November confirmatory IHC test, concurring that the case could not have been confirmed on the basis of this sample. They also examined the November experimental IHC test and interpreted the results to be positive.

Weybridge also conducted additional tests, including IHC, OIE-prescribed Western Blot, NaTTA Western Blot and Prionics Western Blot tests.

To better understand the conflicting results, USDA also conducted Bio-Rad and IDEXX rapid screening tests, IHC and OIE-prescribed Western Blot. USDA also used DNA sequencing to determine the prion protein gene sequence of the animal.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5420/is_200508/ai_n21377094

Texas even had a 'secret' test that showed that mad cow positive; experimental IHC test results, because the test was not a validated procedure, and because the two approved IHC tests came back negative, the results were not considered to be of regulatory significance and therefore were not reported beyond the laboratory. . A Western blot test conducted the week of June 5, 2005, returned positive for BSE.

http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf

48 hr BSE confirmation turnaround took 7+ months to confirm this case, so the BSE MRR policy could be put into place. ...TSS

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: re-USDA's surveillance plan for BSE aka mad cow disease

Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:59:07 -0500

From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

To: paffairs@oig.hhs.gov, HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov, contactOIG@hhsc.state.tx.us

Greetings Honorable Paul Feeney, Keith Arnold, and William Busbyet al at OIG, ...............

snip...

There will be several more emails of my research to follow. I respectfully request a full inquiry into the cover-up of TSEs in the United States of America over the past 30 years. I would be happy to testify...

Thank you, I am sincerely, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 xxx xxx xxxx

snip... see full text ;

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Mad Cow Disease typical and atypical strains, was there a cover-up ? August 20, 2008

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/08/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-mad.ht


http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/10/idiopathic-brainstem-neuronal.html




Article Posted: 04/15/2007 9:16:48 PMHuman and Animal Food Poisoning with Mad Cow a Slow Deathan editorial by Terry S. Singeltary Sr.HUMAN AND ANIMAL FOOD POISONING WITH MAD COW DISEASEs A SLOW DEATHWITH all the pet food deaths mounting from tainted pet food, all the suffering not only the animals are going through, but there owners as well, why are owners of these precious animals not crying about the mad cow tainted animal carcasses they poison there animals with everyday, and have been for decades, why not an uproar about that? well, let me tell you why, they don't drop dead immediately, it's a slow death, they simply call it FELINE and or CANINE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, DEMENTIA OR MAD CAT/DOG DISEASE i.e. FSE and they refuse to document CSE i.e.Canine Spongiform Encephalopathy, but it's there and there is some strange pathological findings on that topic that was convientantly swept under the rug. Sadly, this happens everyday with humans, once again confidently swept under the rug as Alzheimer's and or dementia i.e. fast Alzheimer's. Who wants to spend money on an autopsy on an old dog or cat? Sadly, it's the same with humans, you get old and demented your either die or your family puts you in an old folks home and forgets about you, then you die, and again, no autopsy in most cases. Imagine 4.5 annually with Alzheimer's, with and estimated 20+ million dieing a slow death by 2050, and in reality it will most likely be much higher than that now that the blood supply has been infiltrated with the TSE agent, and we now know that blood is another route and source for this hideous disease. It's hell getting old now a days.NOW, for the ones that don't believe me, well mad cow has been in the USA for decades undetected officially, but the late Richard Marsh documented way back, again, swept under the rug. Then in 2003 in December, the first case of BSE was finally documented, by accident. Then you had the next two cases that were documented in Texas and Alabama, but it took an act of Congress, literally, to get those finally documented, and when they were finally documented, they were atypical BSE or Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE), which when transmitted to humans is not vCJD or nvCJD, but SPORADIC CJD. Now you might ask yourself what about that mad cow feed ban of August 4, 1997, the year my mother died from the Heidenhain Variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (confirmed), well that ruminant to ruminant was merely a regulation on paper that nobody enforced. Just last month there was 10+ PLUS MILLION POUNDS OF BANNED BLOOD TAINTED MBM DISPERSED INTO COMMERCE, and there is no way the FDA will ever recover it. It will be fed out again. 2006 was a banner year for FDA mad cow protein fed out into commerce. Looks like 2007 will be also. Our federal Government has failed us at every corner when it comes to food safety. maybe your dog, your cat, your mom, your dad, your aunt, or your uncle, but again, who cares, there old and demented, just put them down, or put them away. It's hell getting old. ...ENDCrushed heads (which inevitably involve brain and spinal cord material) are used to a limited extent but will also form one of the constituent raw materials of meat and bone meal, which is used extensively in pet food manufacturer... http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/03/17004001.pdfhttp://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160273http://newhopetoday.blogspot.com/2007/04/article-posted-04152007-91648-pm-human.

HOUND STUDY

AS implied in the Inset 25 we must not _ASSUME_ that transmission of BSE to other species will invariably present pathology typical of a scrapie-like disease.

snip…

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1991/01/04004001.pdf

2005 DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Area 307, London, SW1P 4PQ Telephone: 0207 904 6000 Direct line: 0207 904 6287 E-mail: h.mcdonagh.defra.gsi.gov.uk

GTN: FAX:

Mr T S Singeltary P.O. Box 42 Bacliff Texas USA 77518

21 November 2001

Dear Mr Singeltary

TSE IN HOUNDS

Thank you for e-mail regarding the hounds survey. I am sorry for the long delay in responding.

As you note, the hound survey remains unpublished. However the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), the UK Government’s independent Advisory Committee on all aspects related to BSE-like disease, gave the hound study detailed consideration at their meeting in January 1994. As a summary of this meeting published in the BSE inquiry noted, the Committee were clearly concerned about the work that had been carried out, concluding that there had clearly been problems with it, particularly the control on the histology, and that it was more or less inconclusive. However was agreed that there should be a re-evaluation of the pathological material in the study.

Later, at their meeting in June 95, The Committee re-evaluated the hound study to see if any useful results could be gained from it. The Chairman concluded that there were varying opinions within the Committee on further work. It did not suggest any further transmission studies and thought that the lack of clinical data was a major weakness.

Overall, it is clear that SEAC had major concerns about the survey as conducted. As a result it is likely that the authors felt that it would not stand up to r~eer review and hence it was never published. As noted above, and in the detailed minutes of the SEAC meeting in June 95, SEAC considered whether additional work should be performed to examine dogs for evidence of TSE infection. Although the Committee had mixed views about the merits of conducting further work, the Chairman noted that when the Southwood Committee made their recommendation to complete an assessment of possible spongiform disease in dogs, no TSEs had been identified in other species and hence dogs were perceived as a high risk population and worthy of study. However subsequent to the original recommendation, made in 1990, a number of other species had been identified with TSE ( e.g. cats) so a study in hounds was less

critical. For more details see- http://www.bseinquiry, gov.uk/files/yb/1995/06/21005001 .pdf

As this study remains unpublished, my understanding is that the ownership of the data essentially remains with the original researchers. Thus unfortunately, I am unable to help with your request to supply information on the hound survey directly. My only suggestion is that you contact one of the researchers originally involved in the project, such as Gerald Wells. He can be contacted at the following address.

Dr Gerald Wells, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT 15 3NB, UK

You may also wish to be aware that since November 1994 all suspected cases of spongiform encephalopathy in animals and poultry were made notifiable. Hence since that date there has been a requirement for vets to report any suspect SE in dogs for further investigation. To date there has never been positive identification of a TSE in a dog.

I hope this is helpful

Yours sincerely 4

HUGH MCDONAGH BSE CORRESPONDENCE SECTION

IN CONFIDENCE

CONCEPT NOT FOR FURTHER STUDY OF MATERIAL OBTAINED IN A SURVEY OF HOUNDS FOR EVIDENCE OF A SCRAPIE-LIKE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (SE)

snip…

b) Fibrillar material closely similar to SAF, found in BSE/Scrapie, was observed in 19 (4.3%) cases, all of which were hounds > 7 years of age. 14/19 of these suspected SAF results correlated with cases in the unresolveable histopathological category.

snip…

The following proposals address the hypothesis that the hound survey observations represent a PrP related or scrapie-like disease of dogs in which the pathological response, and possible the spread of infectivity, is neuroanatomically localized. By inference this could also mean that the disorder is clinically silent and non-progressive.

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/02/09001001.pdf

http://www.mad-cow.org/00/aug00_late_news.html#ggg

http://www.kxnet.com/getForumPost.asp?ArticleId=113652

http://www.keeneequinox.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_i

PET FOODS MAD CATS AND MAD DOGS BSE/TSEs

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

snip…

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

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/03/17004001.pdf

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

snip…

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

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/04/14001001.pdf

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

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1989/04/24003001.pdf

40. When Sir Richard Southwood gave oral evidence to the Agriculture Select Committee, he said:

‘The case of the cat is the first case of spongiform encephalopathy ever in a cat. Well, it appears to be - but if poor moggie got a bit of the staggers, you took it along to the vet and said it was not very happy, it would be put to sleep in the past and no one would have paid £300 to have a post mortem undertaken. So it is just possible that these were occurring before and were in fact caught from moggie being fed scrapie offal from sheep. I cannot say.’[46]

NEXT, ask yourself how many cats and dogs have ever been tested for TSE in the USA ???

DOGS are not tested for TSE. THEY ARE RENDERED UP INTO LITTLE PELLETS, WITH ALL THE OTHER ROAD KILL, and fed back to animals for human and animal consumption. it’s an endless cycle of greed. …TSS



OIE amending the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC establishing the BSE status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof according to their BSE risk

snip...

IN A NUT SHELL ; $$$

(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)

11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries.The OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease status based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status or other significant events that were not promptly reported to then Central Bureau............

http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdf

full text ;

http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2007/10/bse-base-mad-cow-testing-texas-usa-and

snip...

full text ;

http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/2009/01/oie-amending-annex-to-decisio



A New Prionopathy OR more of the same old BSe and sporadic CJD

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-prionopathy-or-more-of

Communicated by: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

[In submitting these data, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. draws attention to the steady increase in the "type unknown" category, which, according to their definition, comprises cases in which vCJD could be excluded. The total of 26 cases for the current year (2007) is disturbing, possibly symptomatic of the circulation of novel agents. Characterization of these agents should be given a high priority. - Mod.CP]

http://pro-med.blogspot.com/2007/11/proahedr-prion-disease-update-2007-07.html

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/askus/f?p=2400:1001:6833194127530602005::NO::F2400

There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance collection.

He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf


see ;


A case-control study of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in Switzerland: analysis of potential risk factors with regard to an increased CJD incidence in the years 2001-2004

http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/02/case-control-study-of-spor



BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01

[Federal Register: January 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 5)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 1101-1129] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09ja07-21]

[[Page 1101]]

http://docket-aphis-2006-0041.blogspot.com/2008/06/bovine-spongiform-encephalopa


Docket APHIS-2007-0033 Docket Title Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Biennial Review and Republication of the Select Agent and Toxin List Docket Type Rulemaking Document APHIS-2007-0033-0001 Document Title Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Biennial Review and Republication of the Select Agent and Toxin List Public Submission APHIS-2007-0033-0002.1 Public Submission Title Attachment to Singeltary comment

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000


Manuscript Draft Manuscript Number: Title: HUMAN and ANIMAL TSE Classifications i.e. mad cow disease and the UKBSEnvCJD only theory Article Type: Personal View Corresponding Author: Mr. Terry S. Singeltary, Corresponding Author's Institution: na First Author: Terry S Singeltary, none Order of Authors: Terry S Singeltary, none; Terry S. Singeltary Abstract: TSEs have been rampant in the USA for decades in many species, and they all have been rendered and fed back to animals for human/animal consumption. I propose that the current diagnostic criteria for human TSEs only enhances and helps the spreading of human TSE from the continued belief of the UKBSEnvCJD only theory in 2007.


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=090000648027c28e&di



Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
Post a comment
Write a comment: