Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded Rangen Inc 2/11/10 USA

Rangen Inc 2/11/10

Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421 Telephone: 425-486-8788 FAX: 425-483-4996

February 11, 2010



In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 10-11

Christopher T. Rangen, President Rangen, Inc. 115-13th Avenue South PO Box 706 Buhl, Idaho 83316


Dear Mr. Rangen: On June 9-11, 2009, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators inspected your animal feed manufacturing facilities located at 115-13th Avenue South, Buhl, Idaho. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000 (21 C.F.R. 589.2000), Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. This regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). You failed to follow the requirements of this regulation, resulting in products being manufactured and distributed by your facility that were adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4), and misbranded within the meaning of section 403(a)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). Our investigation determined that adulteration resulted from the failure of your firm to provide for measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination. The adulterated feed was subsequently misbranded because it was not properly labeled. Specifically, we found:

1. Your firm failed to provide for and use cleanout procedures or other means adequate to prevent carry-over of products that contain or may contain proteins derived from mammalian tissues into animal feed that may be used for ruminants, as required by 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(iii)(B). Since your feed is prepared, packed, or held under these conditions it is, therefore, adulterated under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4).

• Mink feed that was not labeled "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants," in accordance with 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i) and that, therefore, might be fed to ruminants, was produced using the same equipment as aquaculture feed that contains proteins derived from mammalian tissues, such as meat and bone meal. You conducted no clean-outs or flushes of equipment to remove proteins derived from mammalian tissues that may have been present before manufacturing the mink feed that might be fed to ruminants.

• The auger trucks you used to deliver bulk mink feed which contained or may have contained proteins derived from mammalian tissues were not subject to an effective clean-out prior to their use to deliver bulk animal feed, including ruminant feed, that did not contain such materials. There were no procedures to clean the trucks to remove proteins derived from mammalian tissues before shipment of animal feeds that did not contain such materials.

2. You failed to label all products which contained or may have contained proteins derived from mammalian tissues with the statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants," as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(i). Such products are misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). The misbranded product includes bulk mink feed.

• On June 9, 2009, the investigators observed approximately (b)(4) pallets of (b)(4) 50 pound bags of (b)(4) MINK FEED, lot 06/05/09. All bagged mink feed, as well as approximately (b)(4)% of bulk mink feed, manufactured at your facility, was produced using the aquaculture feed production equipment used to produce feed containing proteins derived from mammalian tissues. Because mink feed produced using this equipment may have contained mammalian tissues, it was not properly labeled, as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(i).

This letter is not intended to serve as an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for ensuring your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and you should establish a system whereby violations do not occur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.

We acknowledge your July 31, 2009 letter detailing procedures you had implemented or planned to implement to prevent future violations of FDA regulations relating to mammalian proteins in animal feed. In particular the letter stated that Rangen would no longer purchase meat and bone meal for use in any of its animal feeds and that existing inventories of mammalian protein ingredients would be exhausted by December 31, 2009. Division Manager, Joy Kinyon made similar assertions in the course of FDA's June 2009 inspection. The July 31, 2009 letter further set out procedures Rangen would use to remedy observed violations of FDA regulations while mammalian proteins were still being used at Rangen. Finally you explained steps taken to recover or relabel feed that may have been contaminated due to commingling resulting from your manufacturing and distribution procedures. Within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter you should, in writing, confirm the steps you took prior to receiving this letter and notify FDA of steps you have taken since receiving this letter to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.

Your written reply should be directed to Scott A. Nabe, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell, Washington 98021-4421. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Mr. Nabe at (425) 483-4753.



Charles M. Breen District Director Seattle District

cc: Joy A. Kinyon, Division Manager, Aquaculture Feeds-General Feeds Rangen, Inc. PO Box 706 115-13th Avenue South Buhl, Idaho 83316


Monday, March 1, 2010



Saturday, December 01, 2007 Phenotypic Similarity of Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy in Cattle and L-type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Mouse Model Volume 13, Number 12–December 2007 Research

Phenotypic Similarity of Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy in Cattle and L-type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Mouse Model

Thierry Baron,* Anna Bencsik,* Anne-Gaëlle Biacabe,* Eric Morignat,* andRichard A. Bessen†*Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments–Lyon, Lyon, France; and†Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA


Transmissible mink encepholapathy (TME) is a foodborne transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) of ranch-raised mink; infection with a ruminant TSE has been proposed as the cause, but the precise origin of TME is unknown. To compare the phenotypes of each TSE, bovine-passaged TME isolate and 3 distinct natural bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agents (typical BSE, H-type BSE, and L-type BSE) were inoculated into an ovine transgenic mouse line (TgOvPrP4). Transgenic mice were susceptible to infection with bovine-passaged TME, typical BSE, and L-type BSE but not to H-type BSE. Based on survival periods, brain lesions profiles, disease-associated prion protein brain distribution, and biochemical properties of protease-resistant prion protein, typical BSE had a distint phenotype in ovine transgenic mice compared to L-type BSE and bovine TME.The similar phenotypic properties of L-type BSE and bovine TME in TgOvPrP4 mice suggest that L-type BSE is a much more likely candidate for the origin of TME than is typical BSE.



These studies provide experimental evidence that the Stetsonville TME agent is distinct from typical BSE but has phenotypic similarities to L-type BSE in TgOvPrP4 mice. Our conclusion is that L-type BSE is a more likely candidate for a bovine source of TME infection than typical BSE. In the scenario that a ruminant TSE is the source for TME infection in mink, this would be a second example of transmission of a TSE from ruminants to non-ruminants under natural conditions or farming practices in addition to transmission of typical BSE to humans, domestic cats, and exotic zoo animals(37). The potential importance of this finding is relevant to L-type BSE, which based on experimental transmission into humanized PrP transgenic mice and macaques, suggests that L-type BSE is more pathogenic for humans than typical BSE (24,38).


14th ICID International Scientific Exchange Brochure -

Final Abstract Number: ISE.114

Session: International Scientific Exchange

Transmissible Spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) animal and human TSE in North America

update October 2009

T. Singeltary

Bacliff, TX, USA


An update on atypical BSE and other TSE in North America. Please remember, the typical U.K. c-BSE, the atypical l-BSE (BASE), and h-BSE have all been documented in North America, along with the typical scrapie's, and atypical Nor-98 Scrapie, and to date, 2 different strains of CWD, and also TME. All these TSE in different species have been rendered and fed to food producing animals for humans and animals in North America (TSE in cats and dogs ?), and that the trading of these TSEs via animals and products via the USA and Canada has been immense over the years, decades.


12 years independent research of available data


I propose that the current diagnostic criteria for human TSEs only enhances and helps the spreading of human TSE from the continued belief of the UKBSEnvCJD only theory in 2009. With all the science to date refuting it, to continue to validate this old myth, will only spread this TSE agent through a multitude of potential routes and sources i.e. consumption, medical i.e., surgical, blood, dental, endoscopy, optical, nutritional supplements, cosmetics etc.


I would like to submit a review of past CJD surveillance in the USA, and the urgent need to make all human TSE in the USA a reportable disease, in every state, of every age group, and to make this mandatory immediately without further delay. The ramifications of not doing so will only allow this agent to spread further in the medical, dental, surgical arena's. Restricting the reporting of CJD and or any human TSE is NOT scientific. Iatrogenic CJD knows NO age group, TSE knows no boundaries. I propose as with Aguzzi, Asante, Collinge, Caughey, Deslys, Dormont, Gibbs, Gajdusek, Ironside, Manuelidis, Marsh, et al and many more, that the world of TSE Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy is far from an exact science, but there is enough proven science to date that this myth should be put to rest once and for all, and that we move forward with a new classification for human and animal TSE that would properly identify the infected species, the source species, and then the route.


International Society for Infectious Diseases Web: http://www.isid.org/

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Human Prion Diseases in the United States January 1, 2010 ***FINAL***


my comments to PLosone here ;


Friday, February 05, 2010

New Variant Creutzfelt Jakob Disease case reports United States 2010 A Review


Sunday, February 14, 2010

[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)


Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Transmissible Spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) animal and human TSE in North America 14th

ICID International Scientific Exchange Brochure -





No comments: