CACTUS OPERATING, LTD. BOX 3050 2209 VU. 7TH AMARILLO, TEXAS 79116-3050 AMARILLO, TEXAS 79106 (606) 373-2333 www.cactusfeeders.com April 15, 2008 Food and Drug Administration Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) 5630 Fishers Lane Room 1061 Rockvllle, MD 20852
RE: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Docket No. FDA-2002-N-0031 RIN 0910-AF48 I am writing in response to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notice entitled "Substances Prohibited From Use In Animal Food or Feed; Final Rule: Proposed Delay of Effective Date" published In the Federal Register on Aprfl 9, 2009; Docket No. FDA-2002-N-0031, RIN 0910- AF48.
It is with a great deal of concern and amazement that I submit my comments regarding the proposed delay in implementing the feed ban. Our company markets,close to a million fed cattle annually. The additional enhancements to the feed ban will not materially Improve current BSE firewalls, but it will have a significant, financial detrimental impact on our cattle feeding industry and specifically our company. FDA should have been aware of this financial consequence, when they published the final rule but provided no solutions. A year ago FDA said they intended to work with relevant local, state, and other Federal agencies concerning disposal issues . To date they have not. FDA acknowledges the problems, but has not followed through on their responsibility to work with stakeholders to develop solutions to the very real problems cattle producers are personally experiencing . Despite very effective BSE control protocols Including strong industry compliance and partnership, FDA seems intent on moving forward with this unnecessary and problem-causing rule. The FDA has stated these additional regulations are Intended to provide extra safeguards against BSE. However, FDA has failed to produce any evidence that the new guidelines would further that goal or that it would provide any meaningful improvements to animal health and food safety as a whole. To the contrary, the rule has caused very serious economic, disposal, and environmental problems. Therefore, this rule should be delayed longer than the 60 days which FDA is contemplating . We urge FDA to complete a risk assessment and reconsider the need for this rule. FDA should learn from cattle producers' experiences and concerns and should delay the rule for as long as it takes for FDA and the federal government to provide appropriate, affordable environmentally responsible disposal options. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this very important and onerous proposal . Paul F. Engler
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=090000648095eae6&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
nope, it is cactus cattle that have seemed to have forgotten ;
Witness testifies some ill cattle sent to rendering plant
Web posted Friday, January 23, 1998 5:49 a.m. CT
Witness testifies some ill cattle sent to rendering plant
By CHIP CHANDLER Globe-News Staff Writer
A senior vice president of Cactus Feeders Inc. testified Thursday that cattle with central nervous system diseases were sent to a rendering plant.
Attorneys for talk-show host Oprah Winfrey tried to link those diseases with mad cow disease during a sometimes heated cross-examination.
Mike Engler -- son of Paul Engler, the original plaintiff and owner of Cactus Feeders Inc. -- agreed that more than 10 cows with some sort of central nervous system disorder were sent to Hereford By-Products.
The younger Engler, who has a doctorate in biochemistry from Johns Hopkins University, was the only witness jurors heard Thursday in the Oprah Winfrey defamation trial. His testimony will resume this morning.
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report from which Winfrey attorney Charles Babcock quoted, encephalitis caused by unknown reasons could be a warning sign for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.
Encephalitis was indicated on the death certificates -- or ``dead slips'' -- of three Cactus Feeders cows discussed in court. The slips then were stamped, ``Picked up by your local used cattle dealer'' before the carcasses were taken to the rendering plant.
Under later questioning by plaintiff's attorney Joseph Coyne, Engler said he thought symptoms of encephomyolitis, which include the cow keeping its head locked in an upright position, were ``inconsistent with what was observed in England'' with BSE-infected cattle.
Engler and Babcock sparred frequently as the afternoon's testimony wore on. Most of their squabbles centered on what was said during the April 16, 1996, ``Oprah Winfrey Show,'' the episode that sparked the lawsuit. Engler said during direct testimony that he felt the show contained numerous false statements.
He said Winfrey and guest Howard Lyman seemed to say that the cattle industry was not in favor of a ban on ruminant feed, believed to have caused the spread of mad cow disease in England. Such feed includes processed animal parts.
He said the cattle industry had asked the Food and Drug Administration to impose a mandatory ban on that feed weeks before the show aired.
One significant exchange centered around whether Cactus Feeders or any of the plaintiffs were mentioned by name during the show.
Babcock asked Engler to point out on the show's transcript where they were mentioned.
Engler said he could not, but said, ``When you talk about beef producers in the United States, and we're (Cactus Feeders) the largest cattle feeder in the U.S., then I kinda feel like you're talking about us.''
The plaintiffs are suing, in part, under Texas' False Disparagement of Foods Act, meaning they will have to prove the defendants specifically disparaged the plaintiffs' products.
During direct testimony on Thursday morning, Engler outlined the standard procedures for feeding cattle in feedlots. To do so, he mixed in a large, clear plastic bowl the ingredients that would make up the 20 pounds of feed a feed-yard animal eats per day.
The recipe contained 78 percent steamed, flaked whole corn; 10 percent roughage; 3 percent liquid fat; 2 percent molasses; and 1 percent vitamins and pharmaceuticals, Engler said. The remainder would be a supplement, an ingredient bought from feed manufacturers to provide protein. This portion would be made primarily of cottonseed or soybean meal, but could contain meat and bone meal.
Before this summer, that meal could have contained rendered cattle parts, which is believed to have contributed to the spread of mad cow disease in England, Engler said. The government issued a mandatory ban on such feed on Aug. 4.
Later, Babcock and Engler fought over Lyman's statement that ``cows are eating cows.''
Engler would not concede, as Babcock wanted, that rendered cows can still be considered cows when part of bone and meat meal.
Corn is processed into fructose, which is then used in soft drinks, Engler said.
``When people drink Cokes, they don't say they're drinking corn,'' he said, arguing that a similar process happens with rendered cows.
During the day's testimony, Engler also said statements by Lyman were inflammatory and false.
He said the statement ``100,000 cattle are fine at night, dead in the morning,'' made by Lyman, is untrue.
``It simply doesn't happen,'' Engler said, adding that most cattle that die are the victims of lengthy illnesses with symptoms that are tracked.
When questioned by Lyman's attorney, Barry Peterson, Engler said he did not know whether cattle with BSE might have been imported from England or other countries before bans on those countries' cattle were enacted.
Peterson focused on the only known case of BSE in Canada. He said cattle from that herd were brought to America. Though most were found and destroyed, some could not be located, he said.
``You can't tell me today that some of those cattle were not turned over to a renderer?'' Peterson asked.
``Nor can I say they were,'' Engler answered.
Winfrey appeared tired during testimony, at times resting her face in her hand. The eight-woman, four-man jury appeared attentive through most of Thursday's testimony, though by the end of the day, some seemed restless.
http://amarillo.com/stories/012398/cattle.shtml
The government issued a mandatory ban on such feed on Aug. 4.
that's a flat out lie, it was ONLY voluntary and only a partial ban at that, and as of 2007, some 10 MILLION POUNDS OF BANNED MAD COW BLOOD LACED MBM WENT INTO COMMERCE TO BE FED OUT. ...
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
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
Friday, November 21, 2008
Plasma & Serum Proteins Receive Continued FDA Approval
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/11/plasma-serum-proteins-receive-continued.html
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/
Thursday, November 27, 2008 Prion diseases are efficiently transmitted by blood transfusion in sheep
http://vcjdblood.blogspot.com/2008/11/prion-diseases-are-efficiently.html
Scientists warn of first ever case of human mad cow disease from blood plasma
http://vcjdtransfusion.blogspot.com/2009/02/scientists-warn-of-first-ever-case-of.html
November 25, 2008
Update On Feed Enforcement Activities To Limit The Spread Of BSE
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/11/november-2008-update-on-feed.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement May 4, 2004 Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.
FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.
Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).
FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.
To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.
Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.
FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.
####
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html
USDA CERTIFIED NON-AMBULATORY DOWNER COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/02/beef-recall-nationwide-school-lunch.html
Monday, April 20, 2009
National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center Cases Examined1 (December 31, 2008)
http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2009/04/national-prion-disease-pathology.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment