- From farm to fork, a wide variety of food for thought.
a disgusting and appalling review of what you are forced to eat via big
industry. and as far as the recent OIE review of the USA BSE, i stand by
my previous convictions, ''bought and paid for by your local cattle dealer.''
You be the judge. -- Terry Singletary
-
- What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review
of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health
-
- Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1
and Polly Walker1 1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg
School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute
for Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA; 3Lisa Y. Lefferts
Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA
-
-
- OBJECTIVE: Animal feeding practices in the United States
have changed considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated
production methods have become the predominant model for animal husbandry,
animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients ranging from rendered
animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this article
we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that
have been detected in animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices
may lead to adverse human health impacts is also evaluated.
-
-
- DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health
literature regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present
in feed, and human health effects along with proceedings from animal feed
workshops.
-
-
- DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed
articles and books identified using PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention databases.
-
-
- DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings emphasize that current animal
feeding practices can result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant
bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins in feed and animal-based food
products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could
ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments
of human health risks associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected
at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients
used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to
monitor etiologic agents "from farm to fork."
-
-
- CONCLUSIONS: Increased funding for integrated veterinary
and human health surveillance systems and increased collaboration among
feed professionals, animal producers, and veterinary and public health
officials is necessary to effectively address these issues.
-
-
- KEY WORDS: animal feed, animal waste, concentrated animal
feeding operations, fats, human health effects, nontherapeutic antibiotics,
rendered animals, roxarsone, zoonoses. Environ Health Perspect 115:663670
(2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9760 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 8
February 2007]
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- U.S. Animal Feed Production The U.S. animal feed industry
is the largest producer of animal feed in the world (Gill 2004). In 2004,
over 120 million tons of primary animal feed, including mixes of feed grains,
mill by-products, animal proteins, and microingredient formulations (i.e.,
vitamins, minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in the United States
(Gill 2004). In the same year, the United States exported nearly $4 billion
worth of animal feed ingredients (International Trade Centre 2004).
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- Rendered animal products. In 2003, the U.S. rendering
industry produced > 8 million metric tons of rendered animal products,
including meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct meal, blood meal, and feather
meal (National Renderers Association Inc. 2005b). Most of these products
were incorporated into animal feed. However, data concerning the specific
amounts of rendered animal protein that are used in animal feed are difficult
to obtain because the information is neither routinely collected at the
federal or state level nor reported by the rendering industry. The latest
available data, collected by the USDA in 1984, estimated that > 4 million
metric tons of rendered animal products were used as animal feed ingredients
(USDA 1988). Oftentimes these ingredients are listed on animal feed labels
as "animal protein products." Thus, it is difficult to discern
precisely which animal protein products are included in a particular animal
feed product (Lefferts et al. 2006). Animal waste. Another major animal
proteinbased feed ingredient is animal waste, including dried ruminant
waste, dried poultry litter, and dried swine waste (AAFCO 2004; Haapapuro
et al. 1997). As with rendered animal products, there are no national data
on the total amounts of animal waste included in animal feeds, although
some states have collected limited data concerning this practice. In 2003,
it was estimated that approximately 1 million tons of poultry litter were
produced annually in Florida, and an estimated 350,000 tons of this litter
were available for use in feed (Dubberly 2003). Yet, information concerning
the precise amount of this "available" poultry litter that was
actually incorporated into Florida animal feed was unavailable. Recycling
animal waste into animal feed has been practiced for > 40 years as a
means of cutting feed costs. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) does not offi- cially endorse the use of animal waste in feed and
has issued statements voicing the agency's concern about the presence of
pathogens and drug residues in animal waste, particularly poultry litter
(FDA 1998). In line with these concerns, the AAFCO, an organization that
develops guidelines for the safe use of animal feeds, advises that processed
animal waste should not contain pathogenic microorganisms, pesticide residues,
or drug residues that could harm animals or eventually be detected in animal-
based food products intended for human consumption (AAFCO 2004). Nonetheless,
these guidelines are not adequately enforced at the federal or state level.
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- Table 1. Animal feed ingredients that are legally used
in U.S. animal feeds. a Origin, raw material Examples Plant Forage Alfalfa
meal and hay, Bermuda coastal grass hay, corn plant, and soybean hay Grains
Barley, corn (organic and genetically modified), oats, rice, sorghum, and
wheat Plant protein products Canola meal, cottonseed cakes and meals, peanut
meal, safflower meal, and soybean (organic and genetically modified) feed
and meal Processed grain by-products Distillers products, brewers dried
grains, corn gluten, sorghum germ cake and meal, peanut skins, and wheat
bran Fruit and fruit by-products Dried citrus pulp, apple pomace, and pectin
pulp Molasses Beet, citrus, starch, and cane molasses Miscellaneous Almond
hulls and ground shells, buckwheat hulls, legumes and their by-products,
and other crop by-products Animal Rendered animal protein from Meat meal,
meat meal tankage, meat and bone meal, poultry meal, animal the slaughter
of food by-product meal, dried animal blood, blood meal, feather meal,
egg-shell production animals and other meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry,
hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and animal animals digest from dead, dying,
diseased, or disabled animals including deer and elk Animal waste Dried
ruminant waste, dried swine waste, dried poultry litter, and undried processed
animal waste products Marine by-products Fish meal, fish residue meal,
crab meal, shrimp meal, fish oil, fish liver and glandular meal, and fish
by-products Dairy products Dried cow milk, casein, whey products, and dried
cheese Mixed Fats and oils Animal fat, vegetable fat or oil, and hydrolyzed
fats Restaurant food waste Edible food waste from restaurants, bakeries,
and cafeterias Contaminated/adulterated food Food adulterated with rodent,
roach, or bird excreta that has been heat treated to destroy pathogenic
organisms Other Antibiotics Tetracyclines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones,
and streptogramins By-products of drug manufacture Spent mycelium and fermentation
products Arsenicals Roxarsone and arsanilic acid Other metal compounds
Copper compounds and metal amino acid complexes Nonprotein nitrogen Urea,
ammonium chloride, and ammonium sulfate Minerals Bone charcoal, calcium
carbonate, chalk rock, iron salts, magnesium salts, and oyster shell flour
Vitamins Vitamins A, D, B12, E, niacin, and betaine Direct-fed organisms
Aspergillis niger, Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacterium animalis, Enterococcus
faecium, and yeast Flavors Aloe vera gel concentrate, ginger, capsicum,
and fennel Enzymes Phytase, cellulase, lactase, lipase, pepsin, and catalase
Additives generally regarded Acetic acid, sulfuric acid, aluminum salts,
dextrans, glycerin, beeswax, sorbitol, as safe (GRAS) and riboflavin Preservatives
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and sodium bisulfite Nutraceuticals Herbal
and botanical products Plastics Polyethylene roughage replacement aData
adapted from AAFCO (2004).
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- Antibiotics. The use of antibiotics in animal feed is
also a public health concern. Antibiotics are administered at nontherapeutic
levels in feed and water to promote growth and improve feed efficiency.
This practice has been shown to select for antibiotic resistance in both
commensal and pathogenic bacteria in a) the animals themselves (Aarestrup
et al. 2000; Bager et al. 1997; Gorbach 2001; Wegener 2003); b) subsequent
animal-based food products (Hayes et al. 2003; White et al. 2001); and
c) water, air, and soil samples collected around large-scale animal feeding
operations (Chapin et al. 2005; Chee-Sanford et al. 2001; Gibbs et al.
2006; Jensen et al. 2002). Although the use of nontherapeutic levels of
antibiotics in animal feed is approved and regulated by the FDA (2004),
there is no U.S. data collection system regarding the specific types and
amounts of antibiotics that are used for this purpose. In response to this
significant data gap, several estimates of nontherapeutic antibiotic usage
have been published based on USDA livestock production data and FDA antibiotic
usage regulations. For example, Mellon et al. (2001) estimated that as
much as 6080% of antibiotics produced in the United States are administered
in feed to healthy livestock at nontherapeutic levels. Many of these antibiotics
are the same compounds that are administered to humans in clinical settings,
and include tetracyclines, macrolides, streptogramins, and fluoroquinolones
(FDA 2004). Additional information regarding the types and amounts of antibiotics
used in U.S. livestock is available in AAFCO (2004), FDA (2004), and Mellon
et al. (2001). Metals. Metal compounds are also administered in animal
feeds, and the compounds currently added to both swine and poultry feeds
that are particularly concerning from a public health perspective are organoarsenicals.
The most commonly used organoarsenical, roxarsone (4-hydroxy-3-nitrobenzenearsenic-acid),
is administered to feeds at concentrations ranging from 22.7 g/ton to 45.4
g/ton to promote growth and improve feed efficiency (Chapman and Johnson
2002). When used in combination with ionophores, roxarsone also act as
a cococcidiostat to control intestinal parasites (Chapman and Johnson 2002).
Once roxarsone is ingested by animals, the parent compound can be degraded
into inorganic arsenite (AsIII) and inorganic arsenate (AsV) in animal
digestive tracts and animal waste (Arai et al. 2003; Stolz et al. 2007).
Both AsIII and AsV are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) as group A human carcinogens (U.S. EPA 1998). Many other
metallic compounds are also mixed into feeds, including copper, manganese,
magnesium, and zinc compounds, as well as metal amino acid complexes (AAFCO
2004).
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- Table 2. Biological, chemical, and other etiologic agents
detected in animal feed and their potential human health impacts. Etiologic
agent Examples Potential human health impacts References Bacteria Salmonellaspp.,
E. coliO157:H7 Bacterial infections a Angulo 2004; Crump et al. 2002; Davis
et al. 2003 Antibiotic-resistant E. faecium, E. coli, C. jejuni Antibiotic-resistant
bacterial infections a Aarestrup et al. 2000; Dargatz et al. 2005; bacteria
b Schwalbe et al. 1999; Sorensen et al. 2001 Prions Causative agent of
BSE vCJD c Gizzi et al. 2003; Smith 2003 Arsenicals Roxarsone, AsIII, AsV
Increased human exposures to inorganic arsenic that may Chapman and Johnson
2002; Lasky et al. 2004 contribute to increases in cancer risk a Mycotoxins
Aflatoxins, ochratoxins, fumonisins, Increased human exposures to mycotoxins
that may Bhat and Vasanthi 1999; Hussein and Brasel trichothecenes contribute
to increases in cancer and noncancer risks a 2001 Dioxins and dioxin-like
PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs Increased human exposures to dioxin-like compounds that
Eljarrat et al. 2002; Fries 1995; Huwe and compounds may contribute to
increases in cancer and noncancer risks a Larsen 2005 vCJD, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease. aInsufficient data are available to fully understand the magnitude
of potential human health impacts associated with contaminated animal feed.
bIncludes antibiotic-resistant bacteria initially present in animal feed
due to contaminated feed ingredients, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria
resulting from the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in feed. cDomestically
acquired human cases of vCJD have not been documented in the United States.
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- In another study, 165 rendered animal protein products
originating from poultry, cattle, and fish were sampled from a poultry
feed mill and tested for antibiotic-resistant bacteria (Hofacre et al.
2001). Eighty-five percent of all feed ingredients sampled contained bacteria
resistant to one or more of the following four antibiotics: ampicillin,
amoxicillin, clavulanic acid, and cephalothin. Poultry meal and bone and
meat meal (nonpoultry) samples represented the greatest number of feed
ingredient samples containing bacteria resistant to five or more antibiotics
(Hofacre et al. 2001).
-
-
- Prions. In addition to bacteria, animal feeds (in particular,
cattle feeds) can be contaminated with the infectious agent associated
with BSE (Gizzi et al. 2003). BSE, which is commonly referred to as mad
cow disease, belongs to a group of progressively degenerative neurologic
diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) (Deslys
and Grassi 2005; Smith 2003). The causative agent of TSEs is believed to
be an infectious proteinaceous entity called a prion, which is composed
largely of a protease-resistant misfolded protein (PrPSc). Infectious prions
can be present in animal feed as a result of using rendered animal products
from diseased animals as feed ingredients. Although prions may be present
in all body tissues of diseased animals, it is generally acknowledged that
prions accumulate in highest concentrations in central nervous system tissues
(GAO 2002; Smith 2003) that are referred to as specified risk materials
(SRMs). As defined by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA 2005b),
SRMs include the skull, brain, eyes, parts of the vertebral column, spinal
cord, trigeminal ganglia, and dorsal root ganglia of cattle > 30 months
of age, as well as the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle. In 1997,
the FDA banned SRMs from use in cattle and other ruminant feed (GAO 2002).
Nonetheless, SRMs were allowed to be incorporated into feeds for nonruminants
(including poultry), and subsequent waste products from nonruminants are
still permitted in ruminant feeds (USDA 2005b). As of yet, there are no
definitive tests for BSE infectivity in live animals (before symptoms appear)
(Deslys and Grassi 2005; GAO 2002). However, a number of rapid screening
tests based on ELISA or Western blot analyses have been approved for post-mortem
BSE testing in cattle. Currently, the USDA is conducting a national BSE
testing program; yet, only high-risk cattle are included in the program
and there are no plans to test animal feed samples (that could include
animal protein from asymptomatic rendered animals) in this surveillance
effort (USDA 2004). A variety of tests do exist for the detection of animal
tissues (in general) in animal feed, including microscopic analyses, polymerase
chain reaction, immunoassay analyses, and near infrared spectroscopy (Gizzi
et al. 2003); nonetheless, these methods are not robust enough to distinguish
between bovine products that are permitted in ruminant feeds (i.e., milk
and blood) and bovine products that are prohibited from ruminant feeds
(GAO 2002; Momcilovic and Rasooly 2000).
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Beyond bacterial infections,
a chronic human health risk that has been linked to animal feeding practices
is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a novel human neurodegenerative
prion disease that is currently untreatable and fatal (Collinge 1999).
vCJD was first described in 1995 in two teenagers in the United Kingdom
and was believed to be caused by infection with the causative agent of
BSE or mad cow disease (Smith 2003). Molecular strain-typing studies and
experimental transmission studies in mice published in 1996 and 1997 confirmed
that vCJD is caused by the same prion strain that causes BSE (Collinge
1999). The primary routes of human exposure to prions remain debatable;
however, the most likely route is through the ingestion of beef derived
from cattle that were infected when rendered animal proteins from diseased
cattle were included in their feed. It is hypothesized that the UK population
may have experienced the highest exposures to BSE from 1989 to 1990, when
the incidence of BSE was still increasing in cattle and specific bans on
high-risk rendered bovine products were still being implemented (Collinge
1999). From 1995 to 2002, there were 121 fatalities out of 129 diagnosed
cases in the United Kingdom (Smith 2003). To date, domestically- acquired
human cases of vCJD have not been identified in the United States. However,
since BSE was first identified in the United States in 2003, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have enhanced national surveillance
for all types of CJD in the United States through the analysis of multiple
cause-of-death data derived from death certificates (CDC 2005). Active
CJD surveillance is also being implemented through the Emerging Infections
Programs established in four sites across the United States (CDC 2005).
-
-
- snip...
-
-
- Conclusions Food-animal production in the United States
has changed markedly in the past century, and these changes have paralleled
major changes in animal feed formulations. While this industrialized system
of food-animal production may result in increased production efficiencies,
some of the changes in animal feeding practices may result in unintended
adverse health consequences for consumers of animal-based food products.
Currently, the use of animal feed ingredients, including rendered animal
products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and fats, could result in
higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant bacteria, prions, arsenic,
and dioxinlike compounds in animals and resulting animal-based food products
intended for human consumption. Subsequent human health effects among consumers
could include increases in bacterial infections (antibioticresistant and
nonresistant) and increases in the risk of developing chronic (often fatal)
diseases such as vCJD. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of potential
human health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there
are little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the
amounts of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S.
animal feed. In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted
on complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail
meat products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked
to this information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult
to conduct rigorous epidemiologic studies and risk assessments that could
identify the extent to which specific human health risks are ultimately
associated with animal feeding practices. For example, as noted above,
there are insufficient data to determine whether other human foodborne
bacterial illnesses besides those caused by S. enterica serotype Agona
are associated with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there are insufficient
data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-resistant human bacterial
infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics
in animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to determine
whether the use of organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead to elevated
levels of arsenic in meat products (Lasky et al. 2004), contributes to
increases in cancer risk. In order to address these research gaps, the
following principal actions are necessary within the United States: a)
implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific amounts
and types of feed ingredients of concern to public health that are incorporated
into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered animal products,
fats, and animal waste; b) funding and development of robust surveillance
systems that monitor biological, chemical, and other etiologic agents throughout
the animal-based food-production chain "from farm to fork" to
human health outcomes; and c) increased communication and collaboration
among feed professionals, food-animal producers, and veterinary and public
health officials.
-
- REFERENCES
-
- Sapkota et al. 668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 ·
Environmental Health Perspectives
-
-
- http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1867957&blobtype=pdf
-
- CVM Update May 18, 2007
-
- May 2007 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit
the Spread of BSE
-
- To help prevent the establishment and amplification of
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) through feed in the United States,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented a final rule that prohibits
the use of most mammalian protein in feeds for ruminant animals. This rule,
Title 21 Part 589.2000 of the Code of Federal Regulations, here called
the Ruminant Feed Ban, became effective on August 4, 1997.
-
- The following is an update on FDA enforcement activities
regarding the ruminant feed ban. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
has assembled data from the inspections that have been conducted AND whose
final inspection report has been recorded in the FDA's inspection database
as of May 12, 2007. As of May 12, 2007, FDA had received over 53,000 inspection
reports. The majority of these inspections (around 68%) were conducted
by State feed safety officials, with the remainder conducted by FDA officials.
Inspections conducted by FDA or State investigators are classified to reflect
the compliance status at the time of the inspection based upon the objectionable
conditions documented. These inspection conclusions are reported as Official
Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action
Indicated (NAI).
-
- An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant
objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions
are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance
with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would
be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant
feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified
with OAI violations will be promptly re-inspected following the regulatory
sanctions to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
-
- A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable
conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory
significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment
of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified
with VAI violations are more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed
Ban. These include provisions such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions
involving non-ruminant feeds.
-
- An NAI inspection classification occurs when no objectionable
conditions or practices were found during the inspection or the significance
of the documented objectionable conditions found does not justify further
actions.
-
- The results to date are reported here both by "segment
of industry" and "in total". NOTE A single firm can
operate as more than one firm type. As a result, the categories of the
different industry segments are not mutually exclusive.
-
- RENDERERS
-
- These firms are the first to handle and process (i.e.,
render) animal proteins and to send these processed materials to feed mills
and/or protein blenders for use as a feed ingredient.
-
- Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been
reported to FDA 269
-
- Number of active firms handling materials prohibited
from use in ruminant feed 161 (60 % of those active firms inspected)
-
- Of the 161 active firms handling prohibited materials,
their most recent inspection revealed that:
-
- 0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
-
- 4 firms (2.5 %) were classified as VAI
-
- LICENSED FEED MILLS
-
- FDA licenses these feed mills to produce medicated feed
products. The license is required to manufacture and distribute feed using
certain potent drug products, usually those requiring some pre-slaughter
withdrawal time. This licensing has nothing to do with handling prohibited
materials under the feed ban regulation. A medicated feed license from
FDA is not required to handle materials prohibited under the Ruminant Feed
Ban.
-
- Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been
reported to FDA 1,074
-
- Number of active firms handling materials prohibited
from use in ruminant feed 444 (41 % of those active firms inspected)
-
- Of the 444 active firms handling prohibited materials,
their most recent inspection revealed that:
-
- 0 firms (0.0 %) were classified as OAI
-
- 5 firms (1.1 %) were classified as VAI
-
- FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
-
- These feed mills are not licensed by the FDA to produce
medicated feeds.
-
- Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been
reported to FDA 5,183
-
- Number of active firms handling materials prohibited
from use in ruminant feed 2,391 (46 % of those active firms inspected)
-
- Of the 2,391 active firms handling prohibited materials,
their most recent inspection revealed that:
-
- 3 firms (0.1 %) were classified as OAI
-
- 56 firms (2.3 %) were classified as VAI
-
- PROTEIN BLENDERS
-
- These firms blend rendered animal protein for the purpose
of producing quality feed ingredients that will be used by feed mills.
-
- Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been
reported to FDA 386
-
- Number of active firms handling materials prohibited
from use in ruminant feed 183 (47% of those active firms inspected)
-
- Of the 183 active firms handling prohibited materials,
their most recent inspection revealed that:
-
- 1 firm (0.5 %) was classified as OAI
-
- 7 firms (3.8 %) were classified as VAI
-
- RENDERERS, FEED MILLS, AND PROTEIN BLENDERS MANUFACTURING
WITH PROHIBITED MATERIAL
-
- This category includes only those firms that actually
use prohibited material to manufacture, process, or blend animal feed or
feed ingredients.
-
- Total number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein
blenders whose initial inspection has been reported to FDA 6,604
-
- Number of active renderers, feed mills, and protein blenders
processing with prohibited materials 497 (7.5 %)
-
- Of the 497 active renderers, feed mills, and protein
blenders processing with prohibited materials, their most recent inspection
revealed that:
-
- 2 firms (0.4 %) were classified as OAI
-
- 24 firms (4.8 %) were classified as VAI
-
- OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
-
- Examples of such firms include ruminant feeders, on-farm
mixers, pet food manufacturers, animal feed salvagers, distributors, retailers,
and animal feed transporters.
-
- Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been
reported to FDA 17,227
-
- Number of active firms handling materials prohibited
from use in ruminant feed 5,415 (31% of those active firms inspected)
-
- Of the 5,415 active firms handling prohibited materials,
their most recent inspection revealed that:
-
- 2 firms (0.04 %) were classified as OAI
-
- 186 firms (3.4%) were classified as VAI
-
- TOTAL FIRMS
-
- Note that a single firm can be reported under more than
one firm category; therefore, the summation of the individual OAI/VAI firm
categories will be more than the actual total number of OAI/VAI firms,
as presented below.
-
- Number of active firms whose initial inspection has been
reported to FDA 19,705
-
- Number of active firms handling materials prohibited
from use in ruminant feed 6,146 (31 % of those active firms inspected)
-
- Of the 6,146 active firms handling prohibited materials,
their most recent inspection revealed that:
-
- 3 firms (0.05 %) were classified as OAI
-
- 200 firms (3.3 %) were classified as VAI
-
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
-
- Issued by: FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Communications
Staff,
- HFV-12 7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
- Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
- Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm
-
-
- http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/BSE0507.htm
-
-
- 10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E.
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
-
-
- http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
-
- May 2007 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit
the Spread of BSE
-
-
-
- what about BASE ???
-
-
- USA MAD COW STRAIN MORE VIRULENT TO HUMANS THAN UK STRAIN
-
- 18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting
(426 KB) held on 7 December 2006 are now available.
-
-
- snip...
-
- 64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting,
a study was presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep
may be more virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine
derived BSE.
-
- Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic
spongiform encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified
in the prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN
NATURE TO A MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.
-
-
- snip...
-
|
