Texas Certified Chronic Wasting Disease CWD Sample Collector, like the Wolf Guarding the Henhouse
Just got off the phone with TAHC, and I wanted to confirm this. but it
seems true, that in the state of Texas, even if you are a Captive game farmer,
breeder, part of the captive industry at all, if you want to sample your own
cervid for cwd, instead of the TAHC, TPWD, or Doctor, all you have to do is pass
the Certified CWD Sample Collector course, and bingo, you sample your own herd. ...tss
The new Subchapter C, which is entitled “Chronic Wasting Disease” includes
standards and requirements for persons authorized by the commission to perform
work as a Certified CWD Sample Collector. The provisions also establish
application, training and recordkeeping requirements. A Certified CWD Sample
Collector is an individual who has completed commission provided or approved
training on the collection and preservation of samples for CWD testing and on
proper recordkeeping, and who has been authorized to perform these activities by
the commission.
For more information about the CWD herd program, call your TAHC region
office or 800-550-8242 x777.
IN my opinion, to let anyone other than a certified Doctor of Veterinarian
have anything to do with sampling cervid for Chronic Wasting Disease CWD, is
simply not acceptable. but does not surprise me. it is an accident waiting,
yearning to happen. ...tss
*** SEE TEXAS HERD TRACE OUT FACILITIES MAP ***
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
*** Texas CWD Medina County Herd Investigation Update July 16, 2015
***
I remember that worked out well for the USDA BSE surveillance program
;
Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE
sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February
2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The
owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified
BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to
USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those
cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the
owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem)
samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently
received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.
snip...
Topics that will be covered in ongoing or planned reviews under Goal 1
include:
soundness of BSE maintenance sampling (APHIS),
implementation of Performance-Based Inspection System enhancements for
specified risk material (SRM) violations and improved inspection controls over
SRMs (FSIS and APHIS),
snip...
The findings and recommendations from these efforts will be covered in
future semiannual reports as the relevant audits and investigations are
completed.
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
-MORE Office of the United States Attorney District of Arizona FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Information Contact Public Affairs February 16, 2007 WYN
HORNBUCKLE Telephone: (602) 514-7625 Cell: (602) 525-2681
CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT PLEAD GUILTY TO DEFRAUDING GOVERNMENT’S MAD
COW DISEASE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
PHOENIX -- Farm Fresh Meats, Inc. and Roland Emerson Farabee, 55, of
Maricopa, Arizona, pleaded guilty to stealing $390,000 in government funds, mail
fraud and wire fraud, in federal district court in Phoenix. U.S. Attorney Daniel
Knauss stated, “The integrity of the system that tests for mad cow disease
relies upon the honest cooperation of enterprises like Farm Fresh Meats. Without
that honest cooperation, consumers both in the U.S. and internationally are at
risk. We want to thank the USDA’s Office of Inspector General for their
continuing efforts to safeguard the public health and enforce the law.” Farm
Fresh Meats and Farabee were charged by Information with theft of government
funds, mail fraud and wire fraud. According to the Information, on June 7, 2004,
Farabee, on behalf of Farm Fresh Meats, signed a contract with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (the “USDA Agreement”) to collect obex samples from
cattle at high risk of mad cow disease (the “Targeted Cattle Population”). The
Targeted Cattle Population consisted of the following cattle: cattle over thirty
months of age; nonambulatory cattle; cattle exhibiting signs of central nervous
system disorders; cattle exhibiting signs of mad cow disease; and dead cattle.
Pursuant to the USDA Agreement, the USDA agreed to pay Farm Fresh Meats $150 per
obex sample for collecting obex samples from cattle within the Targeted Cattle
Population, and submitting the obex samples to a USDA laboratory for mad cow
disease testing. Farm Fresh Meats further agreed to maintain in cold storage the
sampled cattle carcasses and heads until the test results were received by Farm
Fresh Meats.
Evidence uncovered during the government’s investigation established that
Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted samples from cattle outside the Targeted
Cattle Population. Specifically, Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee submitted, or
caused to be submitted, obex samples from healthy, USDA inspected cattle, in
order to steal government moneys.
Evidence collected also demonstrated that Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee
failed to maintain cattle carcasses and heads pending test results and falsified
corporate books and records to conceal their malfeasance. Such actions, to the
extent an obex sample tested positive (fortunately, none did), could have
jeopardized the USDA’s ability to identify the diseased animal and pinpoint its
place of origin. On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, Farm Fresh Meats and Farabee
pleaded guilty to stealing government funds and using the mails and wires to
effect the scheme. According to their guilty pleas:
(a) Farm Fresh Meats collected, and Farabee directed others to collect,
obex samples from cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population, which were not
subject to payment by the USDA;
(b) Farm Fresh Meats 2 and Farabee caused to be submitted payment requests
to the USDA knowing that the requests were based on obex samples that were not
subject to payment under the USDA Agreement;
(c) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others
to complete and submit, BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms to the USDA’s
testing laboratory that were false and misleading;
(d) Farm Fresh Meats completed and submitted, and Farabee directed others
to complete and submit, BSE Surveillance Submission Forms filed with the USDA
that were false and misleading;
(e) Farm Fresh Meats falsified, and Farabee directed others to falsify,
internal Farm Fresh Meats documents to conceal the fact that Farm Fresh Meats
was seeking and obtaining payment from the USDA for obex samples obtained from
cattle outside the Targeted Cattle Population; and
(f) Farm Fresh Meats failed to comply with, and Farabee directed others to
fail to comply with, the USDA Agreement by discarding cattle carcasses and heads
prior to receiving BSE test results. A conviction for theft of government funds
carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Mail fraud and wire fraud
convictions carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Convictions for
the above referenced violations also carry a maximum fine of $250,000 for
individuals and $500,000 for organizations. In determining an actual sentence,
Judge Earl H. Carroll will consult the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide
appropriate sentencing ranges. The judge, however, is not bound by those
guidelines in determining a sentence.
Sentencing is set before Judge Earl H. Carroll on May 14, 2007. The
investigation in this case was conducted by Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Alejandro Quintero, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector
General. The prosecution is being handled by Robert Long, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, District of Arizona, Phoenix. CASE NUMBER: CR-07-00160-PHX-EHC RELEASE
NUMBER: 2007-051(Farabee) # # #
TEXAS MAD COW TRACE BACK EFFORTS ???
TEXAS MAD COW
THEY DID FINALLY TEST AFTER SITTING 7+ MONTHS ON A SHELF WHILE GW BORE THE
BSE MRR POLICY, i.e. legal trading of all strains of TSE. now understand, i
confirmed this case 7 months earlier to the TAHC, and then, only after i
contacted the Honorable Phyllis Fong and after an act of Congress, this animal
was finally confirmed ;
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.
Executive Summary In June 2005, an inconclusive bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) sample from November 2004, that had originally been
classified as negative on the immunohistochemistry test, was confirmed positive
on SAF immunoblot (Western blot). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
identified the herd of origin for the index cow in Texas; that identification
was confirmed by DNA analysis. USDA, in close cooperation with the Texas Animal
Health Commission (TAHC), established an incident command post (ICP) and began
response activities according to USDA’s BSE Response Plan of September 2004.
Response personnel removed at-risk cattle and cattle of interest (COI) from the
index herd, euthanized them, and tested them for BSE; all were negative. USDA
and the State extensively traced all at-risk cattle and COI that left the index
herd. The majority of these animals entered rendering and/or slaughter channels
well before the investigation began. USDA’s response to the Texas finding was
thorough and effective.
snip...
Trace Herd 3
The owner of Trace Herd 3 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of interest. The herd was placed under hold order on 7/27/05. The herd
inventory was conducted on 7/28/05. The animal of interest was not present
within the herd, and the hold order was released on 7/28/05. The person who
thought he sold the animal to the owner of Trace Herd 3 had no records and could
not remember who else he might have sold the cow to. Additionally, a search of
GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by that individual did not result in
a match to the animal of interest.
*** The animal of interest traced to this herd was classified as
untraceable because all leads were exhausted.
Trace Herd 4
The owner of Trace Herd 4 was identified as having received one of the COI
through an order buyer. Trace Herd 4 was placed under hold order on 7/29/05. A
complete herd inventory was conducted on 8/22/05 and 8/23/05. There were 233
head of cattle that were examined individually by both State and Federal
personnel for all man-made identification and brands. The animal of interest was
not present within the herd. Several animals were reported to have died in the
herd sometime after they arrived on the premises in April 2005. A final search
of GDB records yielded no further results on the eartag of interest at either
subsequent market sale or slaughter.
***With all leads having been exhausted, this animal of interest has been
classified as untraceable. The hold order on Trace Herd 4 was released on
8/23/05.
Trace Herd 5
The owner of Trace Herd 5 was identified as having received two COI and was
placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 5 is made up of 67 head of cattle
in multiple pastures. During the course of the herd inventory, the owner located
records that indicated that one of the COI, a known birth cohort, had been sold
to Trace Herd 8 where she was subsequently found alive. Upon completion of the
herd inventory, the other animal of interest was not found within the herd.
***A GDB search of all recorded herd tests conducted on Trace Herd 5 and
all market sales by the owner failed to locate the identification tag of the
animal of interest and she was subsequently classified as untraceable due to all
leads having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd 5 was released on
8/8/05.
Trace Herd 6
The owner of Trace Herd 6 was identified as possibly having received an
animal of interest and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. This herd is made
up of 58 head of cattle on two pastures. A herd inventory was conducted and the
animal of interest was not present within the herd. The owner of Trace Herd 6
had very limited records and was unable to provide further information on where
the cow might have gone after he purchased her from the livestock market. A
search of GDB for all cattle sold through the markets by that individual did not
result in a match to the animal of interest. Additionally, many of the animals
presented for sale by the owner of the herd had been re-tagged at the market
effectually losing the traceability of the history of that animal prior to
re-tagging.
*** The animal of interest traced to this herd was classified as
untraceable due to all leads having been exhausted. The hold order on Trace Herd
6 was released on 8/3/05.
Trace Herd 7
The owner of Trace Herd 7 was identified as having received an animal of
interest and was placed under hold order on 8/1/05. Trace Herd 7 contains 487
head of cattle on multiple pastures in multiple parts of the State, including a
unit kept on an island. The island location is a particularly rough place to
keep cattle and the owner claimed to have lost 22 head on the island in 2004 due
to liver flukes. Upon completion of the herd inventory, the animal of interest
was not found present within Trace Herd 7. A GDB search of all recorded herd
tests conducted on Trace Herd 7 and all market sales by the owner failed to
locate the identification tag of the animal of interest.
*** The cow was subsequently classified as untraceable. It is quite
possible though that she may have died within the herd, especially if she
belonged to the island unit. The hold order on Trace Herd 7 was released on
8/8/05.
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.
THE USDA JUNE 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS TERRIBLY FLAWED ;
CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006
In an article today for United Press International, science reporter Steve
Mitchell writes:
Analysis: What that mad cow means
By STEVE MITCHELL UPI Senior Medical Correspondent
WASHINGTON, March 15 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick
to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease
did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is
that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S.
herds for at least a decade.
The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.
These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought
that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as
calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable,
brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow
pathogen.
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National
Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an
expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question
was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one
year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that
initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector
general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything they did before 2005
suspect," Brown said.
Despite this, Brown said the U.S. prevalence of mad cow, formally known as
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, did not significantly threaten human
or cattle health.
"Overall, my view is BSE is highly unlikely to pose any important risk
either in cattle feed or human feed," he said.
However, Jean Halloran of Consumers Union in Yonkers, N.Y., said consumers
should be troubled by the USDA's secrecy and its apparent plan to dramatically
cut back the number of mad cow tests it conducts.
"Consumers should be very concerned about how little we know about the
USDA's surveillance program and the failure of the USDA to reveal really
important details," Halloran told UPI. "Consumers have to be really concerned if
they're going to cut back the program," she added.
Last year the USDA tested more than 300,000 animals for the disease, but it
has proposed, even in light of a third case, scaling back the program to 40,000
tests annually.
"They seem to be, in terms of actions and policies, taking a lot more
seriously the concerns of the cattle industry than the concerns of consumers,"
Halloran said. "It's really hard to know what it takes to get this
administration to take action to protect the public."
The USDA has insisted that the safeguards of a ban on incorporating cow
tissue into cattle feed (which is thought to spread the disease) and removal of
the most infectious parts of cows, such as the brain and spinal cord, protect
consumers. But the agency glosses over the fact that both of these systems have
been revealed to be inadequately implemented.
The feed ban, which is enforced by the Food and Drug Administration, has
been criticized by the Government Accountability Office in two reports, the most
recent coming just last year. The GAO said the FDA's enforcement of the ban
continues to have weaknesses that "undermine the nation's firewall against
BSE."
USDA documents released last year showed more than 1,000 violations of the
regulations requiring the removal of brains and spinal cords in at least 35
states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, with some plants being cited
repeatedly for infractions. In addition, a violation of similar regulations that
apply to beef exported to Japan is the reason why Japan closed its borders to
U.S. beef in January six weeks after reopening them.
Other experts also question the adequacy of the USDA's surveillance system.
The USDA insists the prevalence of mad cow disease is low, but the agency has
provided few details of its surveillance program, making it difficult for
outside experts to know if the agency's monitoring plan is sufficient.
"It's impossible to judge the adequacy of the surveillance system without
having a breakdown of the tested population by age and risk status," Elizabeth
Mumford, a veterinarian and BSE expert at Safe Food Solutions in Bern,
Switzerland, a company that provides advice on reducing mad cow risk to industry
and governments, told UPI.
"Everybody would be happier and more confident and in a sense it might be
able to go away a little bit for (the USDA) if they would just publish a
breakdown on the tests," Mumford added.
UPI requested detailed records about animals tested under the USDA's
surveillance plan via the Freedom of Information Act in May 2004 but nearly two
years later has not received any corresponding documents from the agency,
despite a federal law requiring agencies to comply within 30 days. This leaves
open the question of whether the USDA is withholding the information, does not
have the information or is so haphazardly organized that it cannot locate
it.
Mumford said the prevalence of the disease in U.S. herds is probably quite
low, but there have probably been other cases that have so far gone undetected.
"They're only finding a very small fraction of that low prevalence," she
said.
Mumford expressed surprise at the lack of concern about the deadly disease
from American consumers. "I would expect the U.S. public to be more concerned,"
she said.
Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of
Prionics, a Swiss firm that manufactures BSE test kits, told UPI one concern is
that if people are infected, the mad cow pathogen could become "humanized" or
more easily transmitted from person to person.
"Transmission would be much easier, through all kinds of medical
procedures" and even through the blood supply, Moser said.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul
Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System
... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05, ...
PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM
"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow
issue for some years, and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed
critiques and recommendations to both the USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."
........TSS
OR, what the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG found ;
Audit Report Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program  Phase II and Food Safety and
Inspection Service
Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat
Recovery Products - Phase III
Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006
Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle
Still Remain
IBNC Tauopathy or TSE Prion disease, it appears, no one is sure
Posted by flounder on 03 Jul 2015 at 16:53 GMT
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Additional BSE TSE prion testing detects pathologic lesion in unusual brain
location and PrPsc by PMCA only, how many cases have we missed?
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...
full text ;
Saturday, July 18, 2015
SPONTANEOUS TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY TSE PRION AKA MAD COW
TYPE DISEASE, DOES IT EXIST NATURALLY IN THE FIELD?
Saturday, July 18, 2015
CHARLES "SAM" JAMES, Columbia, Missouri, was charged in a one-count federal
indictment for violations of the Lacey Act involved the sale of white-tailed
deer transported in violation of Missouri and Florida law
tss
posted by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. at
12:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home