Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Canadian veterinarian fined after approving banned BSE high risk cattle for export to U.S.A.

From: Brett Wessler
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:52 AM
To: flounder9@verizon.net
Subject: BSE article

Hi Terry, I saw you posted an article I wrote for CattleNetwork. As a reader pointed out, the veterinarian approved cattle over the age allowed by the U.S., but there was no sign of BSE found. I cited an article by Global Winnipeg which inaccurately reported the incident. I have updated the article, would you please update your blog?

Thank you,

Correction: Canadian vet fined after approving cows over age limit

Correction: It was inaccurately reported in a previous version of the story that the cattle approved for export were infected with BSE. The animals were only above the age allowed by the U.S.

A judge in Winnipeg fined a Manitoba veterinarian $80,000 for allowing cattle over the age allowed by the United States to be exported in 2009.

Dr. Fawcett George Taylor inspected cattle exported to the U.S. for three producers between February 2008 and August 2009. Taylor inspected a total of 163 cattle over the age of 30 months who were exporting to the U.S.

Taylor did not purposely approve the cattle for export, but a busy schedule enabled the oversight. He and the three cattle producers were charged in April 2010.

Global Winnipeg reports Taylor has worked at Brydges and Taylor Veterinary Clinic for 29 years.
Taylor apologized and is not allowed to inspect cattle anymore. He has nine months to pay the fine.



hello bret,

 >>> As a reader pointed out, the veterinarian approved cattle over the age allowed by the U.S., but there was no sign of BSE found. I cited an article by Global Winnipeg which inaccurately reported the incident. I have updated the article, would you please update your blog? <<<

no signs of BSE found ???

that’s a red herring Bret.

the facts still remain the same, you can’t say they were infected with BSE, or were not infected with BSE, can you, since they were never tested.

the facts remain the same, chances are greater, since they were older cattle, cattle that were banned for a purpose, due to higher BSE risk factors, that some of these cattle were subclinical BSE cases.


These high risk cattle materials are the brains and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and older. The 2008 rule also prohibits the use of entire carcass of cattle not inspected and passed for human consumption, unless the cattle are less than 30 months of age, or the brains and spinal cords have been removed.


Detection of PrPSc in peripheral tissues of clinically affected cattle after oral challenge with BSE

Martin Franz1, Martin Eiden1, Anne Balkema-Buschmann1, Justin Greenlee2, Hermann M Schaetzl3, Christine Fast1, Juergen Richt4, Jan-Peter Hildebrandt5 and Martin Groschup1,6 + Author Affiliations

1 Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany; 2 National Animal Disease Center, ARS-USDA, Ames, IA, USA; 3 Depts of Veterinary Sciences and Molecular Biology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA; 4 Kansas State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Manhattan, KS, USA; 5 University Greifswald, Germany

E-mail: martin.groschup@fli.bund.de

Received 6 June 2012. Accepted 20 August 2012.


Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a fatal neurodegenerative prion disease that mainly affects cattle. Transmission of BSE to humans caused a variant form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). Following infection the protease-resistant, disease-associated isoform of prion protein (PrPSc) accumulates in the central nervous system and in other tissues. Many countries have defined bovine tissues that may contain prions as specified risk materials (SRMs), which must not enter the human or animal food chains and therefore must be discarded. Ultrasensitive techniques such as the protein misfolding cyclic amplification (PMCA) have been developed to detect PrPSc when present in miniscule amounts that are not readily detected by other diagnostic methods such as immunohistochemistry or western blot. This study was conducted to determine when and where PrPSc can be found by PMCA in cattle orally challenged with BSE. A total of 48 different tissue samples from 4 orally BSE-infected cattle at clinical stages of disease were examined using a standardized PMCA protocol. The protocol used brain homogenate from bovine PrP transgenic mice (Tgbov XV) as substrate and three consecutive rounds of PMCA. Using this protocol PrPSc was found in brain, spinal cord, nerve ganglia, optic nerve, and Peyer’s patches. We could confirm the presence of PrPSc in adrenal gland as well as in mesenteric lymph node – a finding, which was recently reported by another group. Interestingly, additional positive results were obtained for the first time in oesophagus, abomasum, rumen, and rectum of clinically affected cattle.


***Oral Transmission of L-type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in Primate Model


***Infectivity in skeletal muscle of BASE-infected cattle


***feedstuffs- It also suggests a similar cause or source for atypical BSE in these countries.


***Also, a link is suspected between atypical BSE and some apparently sporadic cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.


The present study demonstrated successful intraspecies transmission of H-type BSE to cattle and the distribution and immunolabeling patterns of PrPSc in the brain of the H-type BSE-challenged cattle. TSE agent virulence can be minimally defined by oral transmission of different TSE agents (C-type, L-type, and H-type BSE agents) [59]. Oral transmission studies with H-type BSEinfected cattle have been initiated and are underway to provide information regarding the extent of similarity in the immunohistochemical and molecular features before and after transmission.

In addition, the present data will support risk assessments in some peripheral tissues derived from cattle affected with H-type BSE.


Friday, May 11, 2012

Experimental H-type bovine spongiform encephalopathy characterized by plaques and glial- and stellate-type prion protein deposits

***support risk assessments in some peripheral tissues derived from cattle affected with H-type BSE


the trading of cattle, feed, and other products between the USA, Canada, and Mexico, and the potential TSE prion disease there from, was and is incredible, with Mexico not having a clue ;


HOWEVER, I will post your correction Bret. ...

kindest regards, terry

layperson...MOM DOD 12-14-97 Heidenhain Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease ‘confirmed’. ...TSS

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Canadian veterinarian fined after approving BSE MAD cows for export to U.S.A.


per your request for correction, my title to blog changed to this ;

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Canadian veterinarian fined after approving banned BSE high risk cattle for export to U.S.A.




Correction: Canadian vet fined after approving cows over age limit

Brett Wessler, Staff Writer | Updated: October 3, 2012


Brett Wessler, Staff Writer

Drover's CattleNetwork.com

October 1, 2012

A judge in Winnipeg fined a Manitoba veterinarian $80,000 for allowing cattle known to be infected with BSE to ship to the United States in 2009.

Dr. Fawcett George Taylor inspected cattle exported to the U.S. for three producers between February 2008 and August 2009. In January, 2009, a herd of 42 cattle inspected by Taylor were denied entrance to the U.S. after an inspection agent at the border found one animal unable to stand. The cow was infected with BSE.

Taylor and the three cattle producers were charged in April 2010. Taylor's defense said a busy schedule was to blame for the faulty inspections.

Manitoba vet fined in mad cow case

Lorraine Nickel, Global News : Monday, October 01, 2012 1:26 PM

Manitoba vet fined in mad cow case

A judge has fined a Manitoba veterinarian $80,000 for approving cattle over the age allowed by the United States to be exported in 2009.

Dr. Fawcett George Taylor, a vet at Brydges and Taylor Veterinary Clinic in Neepawa for 29 years, appeared before a judge in Winnipeg Monday.

Between February 2008 and August 2009, Taylor inspected several cattle for three producers in the Neepawa area who were exporting to the US.

In total 163 cattle Taylor inspected were over the allowable age of 30 months.

The BSE crisis shut down the U.S. border to Canadian beef after an infected cow was found in Alberta in 2003.

In 2007, the U.S. agreed to re-open the border to cattle 30 months old or younger. In April 2010, Taylor was charged along with the three cattle producers.

Monday in court, both the Crown and defence agreed, Taylor did not purposely approve the cattle for export.

Defence lawyer Greg Brodsky says his client is so busy and was rushed when he inspected the cattle.

When asked if he wanted to say anything in court, Taylor said, "No, just that I'm sorry."

Taylor is still practicing but can not inspect cattle anymore.

He has nine months to pay the fine.

© Global News. A division of Shaw Media Inc., 2012.

Read it on Global News: Global Winnipeg | Manitoba vet fined in mad cow case



Beef products from Canada.—The Committee is concerned that USDA improperly allowed the importation of millions of pounds of ground and processed beef from Canada for many months, until the practice was stopped in April by a federal judge. The judge wrote,

‘‘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.’’

The Committee shares this concern and requests a report from the Secretary by September 1, 2004, on specifically how a decision was made to allow these imports, apparently without the awareness of senior officials, and what actions she has taken to ensure this kind of problem will not happen in the future.’’


Subject: Re: SV: BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY IN CANADA Follow-up reportNo. 3 (final report OIE)

From: Steve Dealler

Reply-To:Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:08:30 +0100


text/plain (164 lines)
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########

Thanks, Karin
the problem with their risk assessment is that they simply dont have enough data
with which to carry out their mathematics...anyway, I will try to add it to the
web site as at least a source for people to look at.

Steve Dealler


> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
> Hello
> I just found today the Canadian risk assessment for BSE, a 150 pages text
> from December 2002.
> All details on Canadian risk imports from UK and other countries should be
> found there.
> Best regards
> Karin Irgens

> > -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> > Fra: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [SMTP:flounder@WT.NET]
> > Sendt: 15. august 2003 16:57
> > Til: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
> > 3 (final report OIE)
> >
> > ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> > #########
> >
> > greetings list members,
> >
> > > The most likely source of contamination of the feed was asymptomatic
> > > animals imported into North America from the United Kingdom between
> > > 1982 and 1989 that entered the food chain through natural attrition.
> >
> > N America imported MBM/Greaves by the boatloads, but now
> > are they admitting that the _live_ cattle imported to N America
> > is the cause? how can they be sure it was the live cattle and not
> > some of the tons and tons of MBM from the UK that caused
> > the only mad cow case in N America? and why is it so far fetched
> > to believe that more than just one got infected? and how many more
> > were rendered into 'food for consumption' for any species?
> >
> > my records show Canada imported 83 METRIC TONS of MBM from the
> > UK in the years 1993, 1994, and 1995
> >
> >
> > HOWEVER, the Times reports 125 metric tons;
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Exports of Meat and Bone
> > Meal in tons (1000 kg) from
> > UK
> >
> > Source - Sunday Times
> >
> > Country 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
> >
> > Canada 30 22 31 42
> >
> > U.S.A. 20 0
> > ================
> > look at the live cattle they imported from UK from 86 on.
> > 399 of i counted correctly. .1 gram lethal, amplification etc.
> >
> >
> > OF UK MBM;
> >
> > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000
> > X400-Originator: S.J.Pearsall@ESG.maff.gsi.gov.uk
> > X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
> > X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=MAFF400/ADMD=ATTmail/C=GB/; m1570208140657aa]
> > X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
> > Content-Identifier: m1570208140657aa
> > Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
> > Message-ID:
> > To: flounder@wt.net (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt
> > Notification
> > Requested)
> > In-Reply-To:
> > Subject: Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
> > X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> >
> > Terry
> >
> > Meat and bonemeal is not specifically classified for overseas trade
> > purposes. The nearest equivalent is listed as "flours and meals of meat
> > or offals (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves". UK
> > exports of this to the US are listed below:
> >
> > Country Tonnes
> > 1980
> > 1981 12
> > 1982
> > 1983
> > 1984 10
> > 1985 2
> > 1986
> > 1987
> > 1988
> > 1989 20
> > 1990
> >
> > Data for exports between 1975 and 1979 are not readily available. These
> > can be obtained (at a charge) from data retailers appointed by HM
> > Customs and Excise: BTSL (Tel: 01372 463121) or Abacus (01245 252222).
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Simon Pearsall
> > Overseas trade statistics Stats (C&F)C
> >
> > Simon
> > as discussed
> > thanks
> > Julie
> > ---
> > Forwarded message:
> > Sent: Fri Feb 04 21:47:01 2000
> > Received: Fri Feb 04 21:45:15 2000
> >
> > To:
> > helpline ou=inf o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb
> > From:
> > d=flounder@wt.net ou=smtp o=maff p=maff400 a=attmail c=gb
> >
> > Subject: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
> >
> > Hello,
> > where could I locate data, on the exportation of the U.K.'s meat and
> > bone
> > meal, to the U.S., between the years 1975 to 1990?
> > Thank You
> > Terry
> >
> > =======================================
> >
> >
> > USA = 697
> >
> > CANADA = 293
> >
> >
> > TSS
> >
> >
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the e-Sweeper Service
> *****************************************************************
Subject: BSE Canada USA
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:23:12 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (261 lines)

######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
Hello all

Terry Singletary has provided the official US import and export statistics for the USA in 2002 and the first 3 months of 2003, for live cattle and MBM (meat and bone meal)

I have tried to figure out how many 'risk units' (external challenge) the USA has imported from Canada during 2002-2003.

The GBR (geographical BSE risk) assessment-method and criteria of the EU SSC are described in detail in the latest GBR opinion of the EU Scientific Sterring Committee.

(See table 5, page 14, for the lists of countries _already_ assessed in category 3 by the EU-SSC.

For each country, the SSC defines the first years of periods 'R1' and 'R2'. R2 is the period when BSE risk is _likely_ in a given risk-country. R1 is the period where BSE infection in a risk-country is considered only as "possible".

Risks from exports from a risk-country (country assessed in category 3) are considered as 10 times higher in R2-years than in R1-years.)

This latest GBR opinion will have to be revised to include Canada among the "BSE source countries" and determine R1 and R2-years for Canada.

Risks from exports of cattle and MBM in R2-years (from BSE affected countries in category 3) are, according to SSC's methodology: - 0,01 risk unit for each live bovine, (at least for cattle imported "for breeding"). - 0,1 risk unit per ton MBM (meat/bone meal).

"External challenges" from risk imports are classified on a scale from negligible risk, very low, low, moderate, high, very high, extremely high risk. To hope for a category 2-classification, the external challenge from a country's risky imports must not exceed a "moderate" risk (100 risk units) in the whole potential risk period 1980 to 2001.

For the USA, there is no point in trying to determine the first "R1 or R2-years" in Canada, since imports from Canada to the USA _only in 2002_ are more than sufficient to assess the external challenge to the USA as _very_ high. The resulting classification of the USA in category 3 now seems absolutely unavoidable.
1. US imports of MBM from Canada:

In 2002 the USA imported 43.671 tons MBM from Canada. In 2003 (january-march) the USA imported 13.138 tons MBM from Canada. Total for 15 months: 56.809 tons (5.680 risk units).
Average > 45.000 tons/year = average 4.500 risk units/year

If we _assume_ similar quantities of MBM imported from Canada in previous years, this would add up to 6 X 4.500 = 27.000 risk units for the years 1996-2001 (1996 was probably the year of birth of the Albertan BSE-cow).

Total 27.000 + 5.600 = 32.600 risk units for the period 1996 to March 2003 (if this assumption on 'similar' quantities in 1996-2001 holds true)

2. US imports of live cattle from Canada.

According to the media, the USA has imported approx. 9 million live cattle from Canada in the years 1996-2002.

According to a 'worst case scenario', if all these 9 million cattle had been imported _for breeding purposes_, this would represent 90.000 risk units. However, this is certainly not the case. Most of these 9.000.000 cattle were probably imported for immediate slaughter, or for a fattening period of a few months before slaughter.
The SSC does not precisely quantify the corresponding risk reduction, but they say (page 15):

"... imported animals slaughtered young (e.g. < 24 months of age) can only carry a fraction of the infectivity found in a clinical case, even if infected prior to export. Imported calves that are immediately slaughtered before 2 years of age therefore represent _no or only a very small_ external challenge".

Again, we have detailed statistics for cattle imports to USA only from year 2002, provided by Terry. Maybe Terry later can provide statistics for earlier years, either directly or by means of the "Freedom of informations Act".

For live cattle, the US import statistics (2002) are more complicated, because the USA uses lots of different codes for live cattle. For some code numbers, it is clearly indicated "for breeding" and other code numbers clearly indicate "for immediate slaughter". Some other code numbers indicate the weights of imported cattle, which does not allow to draw any conclusions as to the future fate of the animals (immediate slaughter or survival 1-2-3 or more years in the US before slaughter.)

The USA imported in 2002 from Canada:

- 166 bovine animals, purebred breeding, dairy, male

- 6.237 purebred breeding, dairy, female

- 217 purebred breeding, 'except dairy', male (= beef breeds)

- 576 purebred breeding, 'except dairy', female

- 2.409 males for breeding, unspecified

- 7.695 females for breeding, unspecified

Total 17.300 cattle 'for breeding' in 2002 (= 173 risk units)

Also in 2002, 61.628 live young cattle were imported "specially for dairy purposes". I would think that this means that they would be used as dairy cows and have maybe 3 calves or even more. The first calf might be born when these heifers were around 22 months old. Add _at least_ 2 X 9 months for the next two pregnancies, then they would be at least 22 + 18 = 40 months old at slaughter... ( probably older).
_If_ these assumptions are correct, this would represent 616 additional risk units imported in 2002.

Then there are many other cattle imports from Canada on several other code numbers specifying only the animals' weights, not their final use or destination :

From Canada, 162 + 7812 + 93.678 + 34.536 + 114.662 + 107.120 + 143.151 + 81.901

Total 583.022 live cattle from Canada in 2002, for which age at slaughter in the USA is unknown.

Maybe most were slaughtered very young, but we dont know.

A great number of cattle imported to the USA from Canada in 2002 were registered on code numbers specifying "for immediate slaughter": 346.237 + 57.448 + 372.294 + 248.399 = 1.024.378 cattle that should be considered as very low or negligible risk _if we were sure_ that they were all very young at the date of import. The risk would mainly be from rendered intestines if all these cattle were very young. But we dont really know how many % were very young. We know only that they weighed 320 kg _or more_ at the time of import (according to code definitions).

If 320 kg at the date of import, it means they might be around 5-6 months at the time of import (negligible risk if slaughtered immediately or soon). If much heavier than 320 kg at the time of import, they might be of various 'adult' ages.

The total, counting _all_ "cattle customs tariff codes" amounts to 1, 686 million cattle from Canada to USA in 2002, a figure in good agreement with figures presented in Canadian newspapers (1, 7 million cattle exported to the USA in 2002)
3. Total US risk from 'risk imports' from Canada _only in 2002_:

I prefer not to speculate on unknown ages at slaughter of _most_ imported cattle from Canada in 2002.

If we add all quantitatively "real and known" external challenges from Canada to the USA in 2002, we can consider _at least_:
- 4.500 risk units from Canadian MBM.

- 173 risk units from live cattle imported for breeding purposes

- 616 additional risk units from cattle imported "specially for dairy purposes" in 2002

Total 5.289 risk units for _one_ year (2002), if we ignore any potential risk from most of the other Canadian cattle.

4. If we assume similar yearly risks in previous years, at least the period 1996-2001, we could add 5.298 X 6 = 31.788 risk units.
If this is a correct assumption, total risk (from 1996 to 2002 included ) would be:

5.298 + 31.788 = approx 37.000 risk units.
Of course, Canada might have been already in the R2 period long before 1996, I would guess at R1= 1991 = 5 years (one mean incubation) before the assumed birth of the BSE-Alberta-cow. If so, the risk for the USA is even higher.

The risk of _amplification_ of BSE or other TSE's in North America has, to my knowledge, not been notably reduced since July 2000 (date of first SSC reports on USA and Canada). As far as I know, fallen stock and SRM may still be legally incorporated in US and Canadian MBM. As far as I know, there have been no real improvements in heat treatment parameters for US or Canadian ruminant slaughter waste since 2000. As far as I know, the problem was (and still is) that slaughter waste was heat-treated without pressure, or far below 3 bar pressure, and if so, without (or almost without) any inactivating effects on TSE agents.

The risk of _propagation_ to cattle by cross contaminated feeds would have been _reduced_ in North America by the end of 1997 (incomplete feed ban), but this propagation risk _did certainly not cease_ in 1997. I would have believed in the effectivity of the feed ban if this ban had been total/complete (all animal proteins/all species) _or_ if this North-American ruminant feed ban had required _totally separate_ production plants for ruminant feeds. However, this is not the case in Canada or USA.
Experience from Europe, especially from the UK (44.000 BAB-cases born after the first UK ruminant feed ban in 1988), has clearly shown that cross contaminations must be _completely_ avoided to stop propagation of BSE in any BSE infected country. Recommendations of "flushing" feed-mix production lines with a few batches of "pure vegetable feed"-productions will give no guarantee at all.

We all know that many US feed manufacturers have been found guilty of non-compliance to "the rules". But even if they had been totally compliant, they would still be at risk of cross-contaminating ruminant feeds, as long as feed mills production lines + storage facilities + delivery/transport for ruminant feeds are not _totally_ separate.

As far as I can see from the US import statistics 2002-2003 provided by Terry, the Canadian external challenge to the USA is very or extremely high, _even considering only the challenge from year 2002_. BSE-classification depends on external challenge from all years since 1980. Probably, the external challenge to North America before 1990 was very low, low, or moderate. But it would have been amplified by very poor 'stability'.

Maybe/probably some additional external challenge occurred later, from Japan or East European countries.

Will we ever knowfrom which country, from which import(s), how, when, where in North America the first BSE propagation/amplification was started ? In my opinion, the first 'indigenous north american' cattle infection might have been either in the USA or Canada, and we will never know where/when/how. The USA/Canada-trade in MBM and cattle has gone both ways for so many years.

Today it seems irrelevant to try to determine whether North American BSE started in Canada or USA. Both countries should be considered at comparable or equivalent BSE-risk. Both countries should introduce regulations to protect North American consumers... and to protect North American cattle and other ruminants.

In my opinion, the US ban on Canadian beef should cease immediately and totally, and this ban is in my opinion an unjustified obstacle to trade between two countries at very similar risk.

70 to 80 % of Canadian beef exports went to the USA before May 20th. Without the unjustified US ban, Canadian producers would have lost "only" 25% of their exports, not 100%.

USDA's import restrictions on EU-beef should also cease immediately, especially for beef from young bovines born after 1.1.2001 when all feeding of all kinds of animal proteins to all food-producing species was prohibited in all EU countries. Or at least from 1.7.2001 (allowing for a 6 months period to ensure full compliance). Very few feed samples were found positive for traces of mammalian MBM in Norway in the first semester 2001, none later. Those "guilty" feed mills were temporarily shut down until their problems were resolved.
"Non-compliant" feed mills in the USA receive one, two or more "warning letters", but are not shut down.

Today, beef from young EU-bovines (< 24-30 months), even from countries officially affected with BSE, would provide far better guarantees of non-BSE-infection than North American beef, since North America has not even started to control or avoid the cross-contamination problem.

I would however agree that any country should be allowed to prohibit imports of live cattle for breeding, of any age. It is well known that risks are almost zero from semen and embryos, compared to live cattle imports, not only for BSE but for other cattle diseases such as paratuberculosis.

But when I look at the US official export statistics, there are worse problems. North America, especially the USA, may have spread BSE to several other countries, mainly Mexico and several Asian countries, by enormous quantities of exported US- MBM, which will be the subject of my next posting.

Best regards

Karin Irgens

Subject: risk from US exports of cattle and MBM

Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:10:28 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain

Parts/Attachments: text/plain (307 lines)


######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
Hello all
Terry has now provided US export figures for 'breeding cattle' for 1999, in addition to export statistics for 2002 that he had already provided. On the basis of US export statistics for 1999 and 2002 for live cattle for breeding, and US export statistics for 2002 and 2003 for meat and bone meal (code 23.01.1000), we could try to calculate external challenge from the USA to importing countries.
However, _we dont really know_ the situations in most of these importing countries (at least I dont know...).

If live cattle from a BSE-infected country are imported to a country that does not have a rendering system for slaughter waste, there would be no resulting BSE-risk to the importing country. If an importing country decides to exclude waste from imported cattle from rendering, or to BSE-test all imported cattle slaughtered at > 30 months age, the risk will be considerably reduced.
Canadian and US cattle exported for breeding in recent years may still be alive in the importing countries, and may now be excluded from rendering.

We dont know if all US exports of meat and bone meal "code 23.01.1000" were "mammalian" MBM or if some of it was poultry meal or MBM derived only from pigs. The same code 23.01.1000 can be used for registrations of exports/imports of mammalian MBM and poultry meal.

The EU SSC does not consider poultry meal as a BSE-risk, but each country must prove how much of the imports really were poultry meal. It is possible that some countries, for religious reasons, would accept only MBM not derived from pig waste. If such countries imported only poultry meal, the risk would be very low.

We dont know if all registered US exports were correctly coded. It is possible and probable that some exports were in fact other products that shoud not have been coded as 23.01.1000.

And of course we dont know the final destination of "23.01.1000"-products exported by the US, whether or not the MBM reached cattle through feeding in the importing country.

It is therefore not possible to make any real risk estimate, not knowing what happened in each importing country. For countries already assessed by the SSC, such knowledge may be found in the already publisehd GBR assessments.

Here I can only add up exports from US to each country, and only for years 1999 and 2002 (+ january-march 2003), and roughly calculate the numbers of risk units _if_ these imports really represented a risk to cattle in the importing countries. (see list country list below).

It appears that the countries most at risk from US imports, especially MBM would be Bangladesh, Egypt, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Venezuela, Vietnam.

Some other countries have imported much lower amounts of US cattle + MBM in 1999 and 2002/2003, but I dont know if these countries have imported similar (or higher) amounts from the USA in previous years.

According to Rev Sci Tech. 2003 Apr;22(1):237-49. Risk management of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in Asia - Ozawa Y :

" ...significant quantities of feedstuffs of ruminant origin have been imported into Asia, which may mean that the BSE agent could have reached domestic cattle in most countries... Recycling of BSE through rendering plants is unlikely but cannot be totally excluded in some countries such as the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, Pakistan and Taipei China... "

"...The external challenge has been considerably reduced in recent years as most countries in Asia banned the importation of feedstuffs from _countries with BSE _ ..."

(my comments: but they did not ban MBM from the USA... I think China has the world's largest cattle population...)

quoted from a series of articles on CWD, in 2002 : http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/cwd/killer/
" ...the FDA has not imposed the same restrictions on exported MBM. In fact, since the American ban went into effect, annual U.S. exports of MBM have jumped from 291,000 tons to 467,000 tons, a 60 percent increase. American renderers aren't required to warn their foreign customers about feeding ruminant protein -- that rendered from sheep or cattle -- to cattle. However, three large renderers contacted by the News say they label their products that way regardless of the lack of regulations.

Denver's National By-Products said it ships its MBM to China and Indonesia in large shipping containers, not in individually marked bags. But it stamps on its bills of lading a warning against feeding the product to ruminants. The stamp is in English. Once American meat and bone meal arrives in the purchasing country, the manufacturer has no further control over how it is labeled, said National By-Products district manager Ken Kage. A spokesman for the USDA and officials with the National Renderers Association say that foreign trade in U.S. MBM is not a problem because there have been no cases of mad cow disease in this country.

Some countries importing MBM have had few if any rules concerning its use as cattle feed. Mexico, for example, implemented labeling rules only this year (2002), according to Alberto Celis, the National Renderers Association regional director for Latin America.

That was news to many agricultural business people attending an animal feed trade show in Guadalajara in March. Representatives from three animal feed bag manufacturers said they had heard of no such regulations and that their bags remain warning free. Mexico exports over a million live cattle a year to the United States. Mexican cattlemen said these "feeder" cows are not typically fed animal protein, though there is little evidence that the government has an adequate inspection program to make certain. Mexican government officials responded that MBM rules were promulgated last summer, and that they will be vigorously enforced. They said Mexico stopped importing MBM from countries with a BSE problem in 1991 and that there are no known cases of BSE in the country.

The World Health Organization says Mexico's experience with American MBM is reflected throughout the world. The United Nations agency was "concerned that some countries which received (MBM) materials do not have surveillance systems to detect the disease in animals or the human population," said WHO's Dr. Maura Ricketts at a news conference in December 2000. She said once the MBM leaves one country, it begins a "murky movement" that is almost impossible to track. Taking heed of such warnings, the European Union (EU) decided that the risk to public health was too great even if an importing country insisted that it would use MBM only as poultry feed -- which, along with pet food, is its major use in the U.S.
The EU adopted the ban of all exports of MBM in 2000. Instead of adopting a similar policy, the USDA saw the ban as a golden opportunity. "Importing countries of EU MBM may be forced to seek alternative suppliers of animal protein meals, such as the United States," said a December 2000 report by the USDA. "The United States should be well positioned to take advantage of that situation to increase its own exports of MBM."
And it has. Render, the magazine of the National Renderers Association, noted in its April issue that exports of many products were under competitive pressure from vegetable oils. But it noted "a bright spot is meat and bone meal exports that continue to increase." The chief foreign markets for American MBM, in order of sales amounts, were Indonesia, Mexico, Egypt, China, Canada, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Venezuela. In 1998, Egypt imported 96,000 metric tons of MBM from the EU, and only 3,100 metric tons from the U.S. By 2001, the U.S dominated the Egyptian market, selling over 73,000 metric tons..."

(r.u = risk unit) (2003 = US exports of "23.01.1000"-products in the period January through March 2003)

Argentina 1999: 9 cattle for breeding (0,09 r.u.)

1999: 81 breeding cattle from USA (0,8 risk units)
2003: 5 tons MBM from USA (0,5 r.u.)


2003: 2.217 tons MBM

2002: 12.630 tons MBM (1.484 r.u)


2002: 27 cattle for breeding (0,27 r.u.)


1999: 440 breeding cattle

2002: 134 breeding cattle (5,7 r.u.)

2002: 12 tons MBM

2003: 12 tons MBM (2,4 r.u.)


1999: 84 breeding cattle

2002: 40 + 190 + 26 breeding cattle (2,8 r.u.)

2002: 104.784 tons MBM

2003: 19.552 tons MBM (12.433 r.u)

1999: 251 cattle for breeding

2002: 2.363 cattle for breeding (26 r.u.)

2002: 882 tons MBM

2003: 80 tons MBM (96 r.u.)

Colombia has > 100 r.u. from recent imports from the USA. Colombia was previously assessed in category II and might now be re-assessed in category III, unless there is proof that the additional external challenge from USA did not reach Colombian cattle.

Costa Rica
2002: 19 cattle for breeding (0,19 r.u.)

Dominican Republic:

1999: 45 cattle for breeding

2002: 220 cattle for breeding (2, 65 r.u.)

2003: 77 tons MBM (7,7 r.u.)
1999: 120 cattle for breeding (1,2 r.u.)

2002: 14 tons MBM (1,4 r.u.)

2002: 104.408 tons MBM

2003: 15.796 tons MBM (12.019 r.u.)

Egypt would already have a high external challenge from previous imports from Europe.

2003: 41 tons MBM (4,1 r.u.)

1999: 23 cattle for breeding 2002: 26 cattle for breeding (0,49 r.u.)


2002: 51 cattle for breeding (0,51 r.u.)

Hong Kong:

2002: 41 tons MBM

2003: 61 tons MBM (10 r.u.)

2002: 148.558 tons MBM

2003: 36.999 tons MBM (18.555 r.u.)

(according to various figures from newspapers, Indonesia would prevously have been a major importer of British MBM)

Korea, South

1999: 248 cattle for breeding (2, 48 r.u.)

2002: 262 tons MBM (26 r.u.)


1999: 2.228 cattle for breeding (22, 3 r.u.)


2002: 7 cattle for breeding (0,07 r.u.)

2002: 12.646 tons MBM

2003: 2.209 tons MBM (1485 r.u.)

1999: 8.780 cattle for breeding

2002: 10.888 cattle for breeding (196 r.u.)

2002: 93.685 other cattle ??

2002: 62.204 tons MBM

2003: 14.756 tons MBM (7.696 r.u.)

New Zealand

2002: 21 tons MBM (2,1 r.u.)


2002: 57 tons MBM (5,7 r.u.)


1999: 17 cattle for breeding

2002: 59 cattle for breeding (0,76 r.u.)

2002: 172 tons MBM

2003: 57 tons MBM (23 r.u.)

Panama, previously assessed in category I, might have 23 additonal risk units from recent US imports, and might be re-assessed in category II if this could have reached cattle.

1999: 11 cattle for breeding (0,11 r.u.)

2002: 5.585 tons MBM

2003: 1.215 tons MBM (680 r.u.)


2002: 390 tons MBM

2003: 1.520 tons MBM (191 r.u.)

Russia would probably already be at risk from imports from EU and/or east-European countries.

Saudi Arabia

1999: 884 cattle for breeding (8, 84 r.u.)


2003: 4 tons MBM (0, 4 r.u.)

South Africa:

2002: 40 tons MBM (4 r.u.)

Sri Lanka
2002: 351 tons MBM (35 r.u.)

2002: 45 cattle for breeding (0,45 r.u.)

2002: 12.421 tons MBM

2003: 1.719 tons MBM (1.414 r.u.)

2002: 36.476 tons MBM

2003: 7.314 tons MBM (4.379 r.u.)

United Arab Emirates

2003: 39 tons MBM (3,9 r.u.)

1999: 7 cattle for breeding (0,07 r.u.)

1999: 473 cattle for breeding
2002: 169 cattle for breeding (6, 4 r.u.)

2002: 1.998 tons MBM (199 r.u.)

2002: 7.618 tons MBM
2003: 2.229 tons MBM (1.048 r.u.)

Best regards
Karin Irgens

Wednesday, August 11, 2010


Thursday, August 19, 2010



Friday, March 4, 2011

Alberta dairy cow found with mad cow disease

TOO bad Canada’s policy on BSE aka mad cow type disease, and the reporting there from of completed cases, have ceased to exist on the CFIA site for the public to follow. you have to request a copy. CFIA ceased giving those copies out to me. ...
•Request a copy of a completed BSE investigation report for a case after January 2009

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines Commodities APHIS-2006-0041

PLEASE NOTE, type determination pending Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (tdpCJD) in Canada is also on a steady increase. please see ;
> 3. Final classification of 50 cases from 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 is pending.
CJD Deaths Reported by CJDSS1, 1994-20122

As of May 31, 2012

Deaths of Definite and Probable CJD

Year Sporadic Iatrogenic Familial GSS FFI vCJD Total

1. CJDSS began in 1998

2. Data before 1998 are retrospective and partial, data from 1998 to 2008 are complete, and data for 2009 - 2012 are provisional

3. Final classification of 50 cases from 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 is pending.

CJD Deaths Reported by CJDSS1, 1994-20122

As of May 31, 2012



Canada has had a COVER-UP policy of mad cow disease since about the 17th case OR 18th case of mad cow disease. AFTER THAT, all FOIA request were ignored $$$

THIS proves there is indeed an epidemic of mad cow disease in North America, and it has been covered up for years and years, if not for decades, and it’s getting worse $$$

Thursday, February 10, 2011

TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY REPORT UPDATE CANADA FEBRUARY 2011 and how to hide mad cow disease in Canada Current as of: 2011-01-31

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Are USDA assurances on mad cow case 'gross oversimplification'?


What irks many scientists is the USDA’s April 25 statement that the rare disease is “not generally associated with an animal consuming infected feed.”

The USDA’s conclusion is a “gross oversimplification,” said Dr. Paul Brown, one of the world’s experts on this type of disease who retired recently from the National Institutes of Health. "(The agency) has no foundation on which to base that statement.”

“We can’t say it’s not feed related,” agreed Dr. Linda Detwiler, an official with the USDA during the Clinton Administration now at Mississippi State.

In the May 1 email to me, USDA’s Cole backed off a bit. “No one knows the origins of atypical cases of BSE,” she said

The argument about feed is critical because if feed is the cause, not a spontaneous mutation, the California cow could be part of a larger outbreak.


Saturday, August 4, 2012

Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012


Summary Report BSE 2012

Executive Summary

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Update from APHIS Regarding Release of the Final Report on the BSE Epidemiological Investigation


Tuesday, July 17, 2012

O.I.E. BSE, CWD, SCRAPIE, TSE PRION DISEASE Final Report of the 80th General Session, 20 - 25 May 2012

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Human TSE report update North America, Canada, Mexico, and USDA PRION UNIT as of May 18, 2012

type determination pending Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (tdpCJD), is on the rise in Canada and the USA

Thursday, August 02, 2012

CJD case in Saint John prompts letter to patients Canada CJD case in Saint John prompts letter to patients

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

11 patients may have been exposed to fatal disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease CJD Greenville Memorial Hospital

No comments: