BEEF, CANCER, PRIONS, AND OTHER DANGEROUS AND DEADLY PATHOGENS, APPARENTLY,
IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER
Slaughterhouse accused of selling meat from cows with cancer
Stacy Finz and Carolyn Lochhead Updated 10:45 am, Wednesday, February 26,
2014
View: Larger | Hide . In this January 13, 2014 photo, cows wait to be
butchered at Rancho Veal Slaughterhouse in Petaluma, Calif. Rancho Feeding Corp.
has voluntarily halted operations, as it tries to track down all of its beef
shipments over the past year, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported Monday,
Feb. 10, 2014. (AP Photo/The Press Democrat, Conner Jay) Photo: Conner Jay,
Associated Press In this January 13, 2014 photo, cows wait to be butchered at
Rancho Veal Slaughterhouse in Petaluma, Calif. Rancho Feeding Corp. has
voluntarily halted operations, as it tries to track down all of its beef
shipments over the past year, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported Monday,
Feb. 10, 2014. (AP Photo/The Press Democrat, Conner Jay) Photo: Conner Jay,
Associated Press
Cattle graze at Rancho Feeding Corporation in Petaluma, California February
10, 2014. The slaughterhouse is recalling 8.7 million lbs of beef parts because
it used "diseased and unsound animals" and lacked proper federal inspections,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture said. REUTERS/Beck Diefenbach (UNITED STATES
- Tags: ANIMALS FOOD BUSINESS) Photo: Beck Diefenbach, Reuters
Trucks belonging to Rancho Feeding Corporation stay idle in Petaluma,
California, February 10, 2014. The slaughterhouse is recalling 8.7 million lbs
of beef parts because it used "diseased and unsound animals" and lacked proper
federal inspections, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said. REUTERS/Beck
Diefenbach (UNITED STATES - Tags: ANIMALS FOOD BUSINESS) Photo: Beck Diefenbach,
Reuters
Statues of cattle sit atop a building at Rancho Feeding Corporation in
Petaluma, California, February 10, 2014. The slaughterhouse is recalling 8.7
million lbs of beef parts because it used "diseased and unsound animals" and
lacked proper federal inspections, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.
REUTERS/Beck Diefenbach (UNITED STATES - Tags: ANIMALS FOOD BUSINESS) Photo:
Beck Diefenbach, Reuters
Cattle graze at Rancho Feeding Corporation in Petaluma. The slaughterhouse
is recalling 8.7 million lbs of beef parts because it used "diseased and unsound
animals" and lacked proper federal inspections, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture said. Photo: Beck Diefenbach, Reuters
Marin Sun Farms buying tainted Petaluma slaughterhouse Petaluma meat
processor recalling 8.7 million pounds
(02-26) 10:44 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Rancho Feeding Corp., the Petaluma
slaughterhouse that recently recalled 8.7 million pounds of beef, is under
criminal investigation by the federal government for killing and selling meat
from dairy cows with cancer, according to sources who would speak only on the
condition of anonymity.
Rancho was allegedly buying up cows with eye cancer, chopping off their
heads so inspectors couldn't detect the disease and illegally selling the meat,
the sources said.
Although it's against federal law, experts say eating the meat isn't likely
to make people sick. So far, no one has reported becoming ill from eating the
meat.
The huge recall and criminal investigation hasn't just affected Rancho.
Private cattle producers, who used the facility for custom slaughtering, have
also been swept up, leaving the shelves with a dearth of local, natural and
high-end beef.
Bill Niman, arguably one of the more respected cattlemen in the gourmet
meat business and the former owner of Niman Ranch company, said he used Rancho
to slaughter 427 head of cattle and is complying with the recall. He said it's
causing him to hold back about 100,000 pounds of beef from the market and that
he stands to lose as much as $400,000. He said his beef has nothing to do with
the alleged tainted meat.
Voluntarily shut down
But, in an abundance of caution, the U.S. Department of Agriculture wants
to make sure none of the cancerous meat commingled with healthful beef.
Rancho officials could not be reached for comment; the plant has
voluntarily shut down and is in escrow with new buyers.
Both Reps. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, and Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena,
met with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack this week to discuss the criminal
investigation, but they weren't given details.
"I'm disappointed we did not come away with any better sense of what
happened," Huffman said. "However, a couple of good things did happen."
One of them, he said, was the secretary's commitment to have his team meet
with local beef producers to share whatever information they can share. The
other was a promise to talk to beef producers who did segregate their beef and
can demonstrate that it could not have commingled with improperly processed
meat.
That would give the producers a chance to "perhaps get some relief from the
recall," Huffman said.
USDA officials said they could not discuss the case as long as Rancho is
under criminal investigation. But at least one source said Rancho bought animals
with a specific type of cancer found in the optical area of a cow. By
eliminating the animal's head, the rest of the carcass appeared healthy.
'Carcass looked good'
"Rancho, we're told, was slaughtering them, somehow after hours or in other
ways where the inspector didn't know about it," the source said. "Because the
carcass looked good, (Rancho) mixed it back in with other beef that it sold
under its label."
James Cullor, professor of population health and reproduction at the School
of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis, said cows suffering from eye cancer aren't
necessarily dangerous to eat, but he doesn't recommend it. It would be possible
that the cancer had spread to other parts of the animal's body, Cullor
said.
"If I'm out on top of Mount Everest and have a cow (with eye cancer) and
I'm hungry, I'm going to cook her well and deal with getting down the mountain,"
he said. "But if I'm here in this country, I will choose to not consume the
animal. I wouldn't feed the animal to my grandchildren."
Niman, who now owns BN Ranch, said he showed the USDA how commingling would
have been impossible. In a letter to the agency's local Food Safety and
Inspection Service, he has described his cattle's chain of custody from
slaughter to delivery, all under USDA inspection, in painstaking detail.
Mixing up his grass-fed beef with Rancho's milk cow meat would have been
impossible to miss because the differences between the carcasses are too
obvious, he said.
"It's the difference between a motorcycle and a car," he said, adding that
the recall is having a profound effect on his business.
Last year was his biggest yield since he started his grass-fed beef
business. "We felt like we were just dialing in," he said. Now, because of the
recall, he is experiencing a setback.
Nationwide effect
The recall started Feb. 8 and affected food processors nationwide,
including Nestle's Hot Pockets food line. This latest recall was Rancho's second
in 2014. In January, the company recalled more than 40,000 pounds of meat
products that the USDA said the plant processed without the full benefit of
federal inspection.
It was at that time that investigators began getting an inkling of an
alleged breach in protocol when they found two cattle heads infected with
cancer.
Stacy Finz and Carolyn Lochhead are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers.
E-mail: sfinz@sfchronicle.com, clochhead@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfinz,
@carolynlochhead
please remember, for 4 years, dead stock downer cows, the most high risk
for BSE mad cow disease, and other dangerous and deadly pathogens, went to the
NSLP via the USDA et al, and fed out to our children from state to state, county
to county, school to school, all across our Nation, under the cover of at the
time one of the largest beef recalls in USA history, under the cover of a recall
related to 'animal abuse'. what about child abuse, and who will watch our
children for the next 50 YEARS FOR CJD TYPE TSE PRION DISEASE ???
Subject: nslp deadstock downers recall school by school, state by state
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Westland/Hallmark: 2008 Beef Recall A Case Study by The Food Industry
Center January 2010 THE FLIM-FLAM REPORT
There Are Too Few Eyes Looking At Too Many Animals Going to Slaughter
USDA orders silence on mad cow in Texas
By Steve Mitchell United Press International Published 5/11/2004 10:16 PM
WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued
an order instructing its inspectors in Texas, where federal madcow disease
testing policies recently were violated, not to talk about the cattle disorder
with outside parties, United Press International has learned.
Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA has
sent out notices in the past stating inspectors cannot talk to reporters.
"It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the right
to talk to anybody about any subject, as long as they clarify they are not
speaking on behalf of the USDA and they are not doing it on government time, he
said.
full text ;
Food Safety Union head charges that SRM regulations are ineffective
by Pete Hisey on 12/22/04 for Meatingplace.com
A former FSIS meat inspector has charged that some beef processors may be
inadvertently allowing nerve tissue associated with bovine spongiform
encephalopathy into the nation's food supply.
A letter from Stan Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council of Food
Inspection Locals, which represents about 5,000 food inspectors nationally, was
released through Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, charging that a
flawed system for preventing specified risk materials from reaching the food
chain is endangering the national food supply.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE-Union head charges that SRM regulations are ineffective
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:45:35 –0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: phisey@meatingplace.com
PLEASE ;
> There is absolutely no evidence that FSIS inspectors have engaged in
> such gross dereliction of duty. These facts suggest that these reports
> are motivated more by political ideology than the facts."
R I G H T ... like it has never ever happened before.....tss
protect the industry at all cost, to hell with the consumers, that is what
you telling us there Pete......tss
Issued June 2000
Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection
1998 Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States Congress
snip...
* In March 1998, an FSIS food inspector and a Federal plant in New York
were each sentenced on one felony count of bribery. The inspector was assessed a
criminal fine of $17,000, assessed a $100 special assessment fee, and placed on
probation for 5 years. The inspector was also required to serve 6 months in home
detention and complete 200 hours of community service. The Federal plant was
assessed a criminal fine of $10,000, paid a $100 special assessment fee, and was
placed on probation for 5 years. The investigation revealed that the inspector
accepted money in exchange for inspecting and passing downer (dying, diseased or
disabled) livestock that were supposed to be inspected by an FSIS veterinarian
and for allowing company employees to slaughter animals and to use inspection
brands when the inspector was not present.
snip...
Civil Enforcement Actions
The following Civil Enforcement Actions are a representative sample of
actions taken during FY 1998:
* In June 1998, an Illinois Federal plant entered into a settlement
agreement with the USDA and the United States Attorney for violating the FMIA,
PPIA, and False Claims Act (FCA). The firm agreed to pay the Court-ordered civil
penalty of $20,000. The investigation revealed that the firm prepared various
meat and/or poultry egg rolls without the benefit of Federal inspection, sold
and transported the non-federally inspected products in interstate commerce, and
used the official mark of meat and poultry inspection without
authorization...
snip...
FSIS REPORT TO CONGRESS 1996
In June 1996, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
in Oakland, California, sentenced the former vice president of a closed meat
processing establishment and the establishment for violations of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act. The official paid $250,000 as part of a restitution/fine
payment, received 5 years' probation, and was required to perform 1,000 hours of
community service. The firm was ordered to pay $500,000 in restitution to the
Defense Logistics Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense. In addition, three
co-defendants were sentenced for selling adulterated meat to the now defunct
establishment. The co-defendants were convicted of illegally slaughtering cattle
and transporting and selling the adulterated meat to the now defunct firm,
knowing the meat would be processed for resale and human consumption. The former
vice president admitted buying dead, dying, diseased, or disabled cattle from
the co-defendants and using the adulterated meat to prepare meat products for
commercial sales and for Government military contracts. The investigation was
conducted in 1993 by the USDA Office of Inspector General, officials from the
Defense Criminal Investigation Service, and FSIS compliance officers.
Restitution to the military was initiated under the Affirmative Civil
Enforcement program...
snip...
February 2003
Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection 2000 Report of the Secretary of
Agriculture to the U.S. Congress
snip...
MORE BRIBERY FOR PASSING DOWNERS FOR HUMAN/ANIMAL CONSUMPTION...TSS
* June 2000. A USDA Judicial Officer (JO) issued a Decision upholding
indefinite withdrawal of inspection services from a meat and poultry company
located in Greenville, New York. The JO’s Decision upheld an Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) Decision. The decisions were the result of an administrative
hearing before the ALJ wherein USDA presented evidence to show that the company
was “unfit” for inspection service. The proceeding to withdraw inspection was
based on the company’s felony conviction of bribing a public official. An
investigation revealed that the company provided money to an inspector in
exchange for inspecting and passing dying, diseased, or disabled livestock
requiring additional inspection by a Veterinary Medical Officer. The inspector
and company were convicted in separate trials. The company has appealed to a
U.S. District Court...
snip...
March 2001
Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Inspection 1999 Report of the Secretary of
Agriculture to the U.S. Congress
Preface
snip...
January 1999. The owner of an export inspection station was sentenced on
two felony counts for using simulated export certificates with intent to
defraud. The defendant was sentenced to 3 years' probation and fined $10,000.
The investigation revealed that the defendant fraudulently exported
approximately 3 million pounds of meat and poultry products to Mexico.
snip...
==================================
Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration
New Orleans District Southeast Region 6600 Plaza Drive, Suite 400 New
Orleans, Louisiana 70127 Telephone: 504-253-4519 Facsimile: 504-253-4520
December 9, 2004
WARNING LETTER NO. 2005-NOL-07
FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Alan O. Bostick, President Sunshine Mills, Inc. 500 6th Street SW Red
Bay, Alabama 35582
Dear Mr. Bostick:
On September 7 and 14, 2004, a United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) investigator inspected your animal feed manufacturing facility, located at
2103 South Gloster Street, Tupelo, Mississippi. 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. The regulation is intended to prevent the
establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
Because you failed to follow the requirements of this regulation, products you
manufactured and/or distributed are misbranded within the meaning of Section
403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
The inspection indicated you manufacture products containing beef meat and
bone meal. Products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian
tissues, as defined by 21 CFR 589.2000(a), and are intended for use in animal
feed, must be labeled with the cautionary statement Do not feed to cattle or
other ruminants. This is required by 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i). Your firm failed
to label your non-ruminant products with this required cautionary statement.
Specifically, the products that contained protein derived from mammalian tissues
but lacked the required statement included your Happy Fisherman and Premier
catfish feeds. Under 21 CFR 589.2000(g)(2), failure of these feeds to bear the
required cautionary statement causes them to be misbranded under Section
403(a)(1) of the Act.
The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from
regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you
are responsible for assuring your overall operation and products you manufacture
and distribute are in compliance with the law. A copy of FDA s Small Entity
Compliance Guide is enclosed to assist you in complying with the
regulations.
You should take prompt action to correct these violations and establish a
system whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these
violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or injunction,
without further notice.
We are aware you sent label corrections for the last shipment of each of
the mislabeled products. You also stated you plan [redacted] However, you should
notify this office in writing, within 15 working days of the receipt of this
letter, of the 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
violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be
completed within 15 working days, state the reason for delay and date by which
corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available documentation
demonstrating corrections have been made.
Please send your reply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Attention:
Nicole F. Hardin, Compliance Officer, at the above address. If you have
questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Ms. Hardin at (504)
253-4519.
Sincerely,
/s
H. Tyler Thornburg District Director New Orleans District
Enclosures: FDA Form 483 FDA s Small Entity Compliance Guide 21 CFR
589.2000
cc: [redacted] General Manager Sunshine Mills, Inc. 2103 South Gloster
Street Tupelo, Mississippi 38801
Inspector to file charges against USDA
By STEVE MITCHELL, UPI Senior Medical Correspondent | Sept. 6, 2005 at 5:32
PM
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- The federal meat inspector who was charged
with misconduct by the U.S. Department of Agriculture after he claimed mad cow
disease safeguards were being violated at slaughterhouses told United Press
International he plans to file charges against the agency. Stan Painter, a USDA
inspector and chair of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, the
inspectors union, notified the agency's management in a letter last December he
was aware of instances where the riskiest parts of older cows were not being
marked or removed from processing.
Painter worried these risky parts -- known as specified risk materials, or
SRMs -- could enter the food supply and infect people, causing a fatal brain
illness called variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease.
Two cases of mad cow have been detected in U.S. herds, and some suspect
there are more. The USDA put the SRM safeguards in place in 2004 to protect the
public from mad cow disease -- also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or
BSE -- if more cases are detected.
The USDA did not respond to Painter's concerns until he made his letter
known to news outlets.
On Dec. 28, 2004, the agency charged Painter with personal misconduct for
not revealing the names of the inspectors who told him of the SRM violations.
Officials also told him he was under a formal investigation, which was dropped
last month after the release of internal documents revealing more than 1,000
violations of the USDA's SRM regulations.
Painter said he thinks the USDA was attempting "to harass and intimidate
him (and) to have a chilling effect" on other inspectors.
"I plan to file charges against the agency," he told UPI, adding he has not
yet decided if he will go through the legal system, through internal USDA
procedures or another avenue.
Asked about Painter's intent to bring charges, agency spokesman Steven
Cohen told UPI the documents -- called noncompliance reports, or NRs --
demonstrate "that BSE safeguard regulations are being enforced and prohibited
materials did not reach the public."
Mad cow disease remains a sensitive topic for the USDA because it can have
significant economic ramifications. The U.S. beef industry lost billions of
dollars because more than 60 nations closed their borders in 2003 to American
beef after the report of the first detected case in U.S. herds. Japan, formerly
the largest importer of American beef, still has not reopened its borders.
For months, USDA officials denied Painter's allegations in media reports,
saying they had investigated and found no evidence to substantiate his claims.
The NRs released last month under the Freedom of Information Act, however,
showed 1,036 violations of SRM regulations in at least 35 states, Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands, with some plants being cited repeatedly for infractions.
The USDA delayed releasing the documents for eight months despite a federal law
mandating a response within 30 days.
Patty Lovera, of the watchdog group Public Citizen, which requested the
USDA documents, said some of the violations cited in the NRs are egregious. In
one, an employee at a plant in Michigan was not properly marking older cows to
have their SRMs removed because he did not have a pencil. In another, an
employee in a Missouri plant was loading cow heads onto his pickup truck to take
home to feed to his dog.
Lovera charged the USDA with attempting to silence Painter and failing to
address problems with the SRM ban.
"Their behavior through this whole thing is appalling," she told UPI. "Stan
brought them concerns about a policy and instead of investigating the policy,
they investigated him."
Last December, after Painter made his letter known publicly, the USDA sent
an officer to Painter's house while he was on leave to question him about the
allegations in his letter. Later, USDA officials interrogated Painter twice,
asking him for the names of the inspectors who told him about the violations.
Painter said he intentionally was kept ignorant of the inspectors' names
because he feared the agency would retaliate against them. Painter also said
USDA officials did not need the inspectors' names because they could determine
where the infractions were occurring by looking at their database of NRs.
Sometime around June the U.S. Embassy in Japan posted a notice on its Web
site stating USDA officials had found no evidence to substantiate Painter's
claims and had requested a criminal investigation into his actions. The notice
was removed in July after UPI reported its existence.
Although Cohen acknowledged more than 1,000 NRs were written by USDA
inspectors, he minimized their significance, saying they "amount to less than
one-half of one percent of the total written for all reasons by (USDA)
inspection program personnel."
Lovera said any infraction of mad cow safeguards should be of concern,
because this disease always is fatal in humans and cooking does not destroy the
pathogen.
"You have very little margin of error for something you don't want to get
because you can't cook it away and you can't disinfect it," she said.
Painter said his concern now is what the agency will do to fix what he sees
as shortcomings in the SRM policy.
"It's a failed policy," he said. "It doesn't protect the consumer."
Cohen did not respond to whether the USDA planned to change the SRM
regulations.
The USDA's Office of Inspector General has launched an investigation to
determine whether the regulations are being implemented effectively, and results
are due out soon.
E-mail: sciencemail@upi.com
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2005/09/06/Inspector-to-file-charges-against-USDA/UPI-67931126042369/
Release No. 0336.05 Contact: USDA Jim Rogers 202-690-4755 FDA Rae Jones
301-827- 6242
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Investigation Results of Texas Cow That Tested Positive for Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Aug. 30, 2005
snip...
During the course of the investigation, USDA removed and tested a total of
67 animals of interest from the farm where the index animal's herd originated.
All of these animals tested negative for BSE. 200 adult animals of interest were
determined to have left the index farm. Of these 200, APHIS officials determined
that 143 had gone to slaughter, two were found alive (one was determined not to
be of interest because of its age and the other tested negative), 34 are
presumed dead, one is known dead and 20 have been classified as untraceable. In
addition to the adult animals, APHIS was looking for two calves born to the
index animal. Due to record keeping and identification issues, APHIS had to
trace 213 calves. Of these 213 calves, 208 entered feeding and slaughter
channels, four are presumed to have entered feeding and slaughter channels and
one calf was untraceable.
snip...
Published: April 18, 2008 5:31 a.m.
Union head says USDA intimidates meat inspectors
back to reality !
*** FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE DECEMBER 2013 UPDATE ***
OAI 2012-2013
OAI (Official Action Indicated) when inspectors find significant
objectionable conditions or practices and believe that regulatory sanctions are
warranted to address the establishment’s lack of compliance with the regulation.
*** An example of an OAI classification would be findings of manufacturing
procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with
prohibited material.
Inspectors will promptly re-inspect facilities classified OAI after
regulatory sanctions have been applied to determine whether the corrective
actions are adequate to address the objectionable conditions.
ATL-DO 1035703 Newberry Feed & Farm Ctr, Inc. 2431 Vincent St. Newberry
SC 29108-0714 OPR DR, FL, FR, TH HP 9/9/2013 OAI Y
DET-DO 1824979 Hubbard Feeds, Inc. 135 Main, P.O. Box 156 Shipshewana IN
46565-0156 OPR DR, FL, OF DP 8/29/2013 OAI Y
ATL-DO 3001460882 Talley Farms Feed Mill Inc 6309 Talley Rd Stanfield NC
28163-7617 OPR FL, TH NP 7/17/2013 OAI N
NYK-DO 3010260624 Sherry Sammons 612 Stoner Trail Rd Fonda NY 12068-5007
OPR FR, OF NP 7/16/2013 OAI Y
DEN-DO 3008575486 Rocky Ford Pet Foods 21693 Highway 50 East Rocky Ford CO
81067 OPR RE, TH HP 2/27/2013 OAI N
CHI-DO 3007091297 Rancho Cantera 2866 N Sunnyside Rd Kent IL 61044-9605 OPR
FR, OF HP 11/26/2012 OAI Y
DEN-DO 1713202 Weld County Bi Products, Inc. 1138 N 11th Ave Greeley CO
80631-9501 OPR RE, TH HP 10/12/2012 OAI N
Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory (excel format)
PLEASE NOTE, the VAI violations were so numerous, and unorganized in dates
posted, as in numerical order, you will have to sift through them for
yourselves. ...tss
snip...see full text ;
Sunday, December 15, 2013
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED
VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE DECEMBER 2013 UPDATE
ONE SUCH INCIDENT CAN CAUSE 10,000,000 MILLION POUNDS OF SUSPECT BANNED MAD
COW PROTEIN GOING INTO COMMERCE TO BE FED OUT ;
2007
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. BLOOD LACED MBM IN
COMMERCE USA 2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-
contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products:
MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot- Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX
Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL
PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST
PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN
Meal, COPPINI - 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J -
PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN,
BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT
Meal, SMUTNY, A- BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear
cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Final Feed Investigation Summary - California BSE Case - July 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: the effect of oral exposure dose on
attack rate and incubation period in cattle -- an update 5 December 2012
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The Presence of Disease-Associated Prion Protein in Skeletal Muscle of
Cattle Infected with Classical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
NOTE Pathology
Thursday, February 20, 2014
*** Unnecessary precautions BSE MAD COW DISEASE Dr. William James FSIS VS
Dr. Linda Detwiler 2014
WHAT about the sporadic CJD TSE proteins ?
WE now know that some cases of sporadic CJD are linked to atypical BSE and
atypical Scrapie, so why are not MORE concerned about the sporadic CJD, and all
it’s sub-types $$$
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease CJD cases rising North America updated report
August 2013
*** Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease CJD cases rising North America with Canada
seeing an extreme increase of 48% between 2008 and 2010 ***
Sunday, October 13, 2013
*** CJD TSE Prion Disease Cases in Texas by Year, 2003-2012
Sunday, August 09, 2009
CJD...Straight talk with...James Ironside...and...Terry Singeltary... 2009
http://prionopathy.blogspot.com/2011/05/variably-protease-sensitive-prionopathy.html
http://cjdusa.blogspot.com/
Friday, January 10, 2014
vpspr, sgss, sffi, TSE, an iatrogenic by-product of gss, ffi, familial type
prion disease, what it ???
Sunday, January 19, 2014
National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center Cases Examined1 as of
January 8, 2014
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
*** Detection of Infectivity in Blood of Persons with Variant and Sporadic
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease ***
Friday, February 14, 2014
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) biannual update (February 2014), with
briefing on novel human prion disease National CJD Research and Surveillance
Unit NCJDRSU
Monday, February 24, 2014
*** Sporadic Fatal Insomnia in an Adolescent
just saying...kind regards, terry
No comments:
Post a Comment