[flounder]

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Missouri Deer Owners Win Preliminary Legal Challenge from Judge Robert D. Schollmeyer blocking enforcement of new state regulations to help stop CWD in cervid from spreading

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2015/08/missouri-deer-owners-win-preliminary.html

sad regards, terry

 

[Hawk]

Isnt this exactly what I told you guys would happen???

Its time for a new approach if you want these regs.

 

[BustinBucks]

Link?

 

[Hawk]

Link?

Livestock wasn't used as an example, it was the entire basis of the case.. whether or not the deer were actually domestic livestock. Would it have been if its dogs or children? POSSIBLY, but those same statutes do NOT and WOULD NOT apply to wild deer on your farm. THATS THE DIFFERENCE. The captive deer are domestic animals.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=42534

Opinion:

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
OAK CREEK WHITETAIL RANCH, LLC

vs.

GLENDON B. LANGE, et al.,

FILED: November 23, 2010

Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch, L.L.C., ("Oak Creek") appeals the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Glendon Lange, et al., ("the Defendants"). We reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

Oak Creek is a deer breeding and hunting business. On December 10, 2006, three dogs, allegedly owned by the Defendants, entered Oak Creek's property, broke through the pen where the breeder deer were kept, and killed twenty one of Oak Creek's deer. The deer killed were “breeder deer," including bucks, does, and fawns.

The deer killed (and their parents) were all penned and hand-fed, and lacked the defensive abilities of wild deer. The deer were being raised for their genetic ability to produce male offspring with extraordinarily large antler racks. The breeder deer were valuable animals, some selling well into six figures.

Oak Creek sued Defendants under Section 273.020 RSMo 20001, which places liability on the dog owner when that dog kills or maims a domestic animal. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that deer were not domestic animals. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. Oak Creek appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

In Oak Creek's sole point on appeal, it argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Oak Creek's breeder deer that were killed are "domestic animals" under Section 273.020. We agree.

Review on appeal of summary judgment is essentially de novo. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

Section 273.020 creates a liability of the owner or keeper of a dog, when said dog kills or maims a sheep or "other domestic animal." Section 273.020. The trial court interpreted the term "domestic animal" to mean "traditional domestic farm animals" such as "cattle, swine, chickens and horses." We find that this interpretation violates the rules of statutory interpretation.

"Absent a statutory definition, the primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute." Brinker Mo, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 319 S.W.3d 433, 437-38 (Mo. banc. 2010).

Here, there is no statutory definition of "domestic" so we look to the plain meaning of the word.

Webster's Dictionary defines the word “Domestic,†as related to animals, to mean “[l]iving in or near the habitation of man; domesticated; tame; as, domestic animals.†Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd Ed.). “Domestic Animal†is in turn defined as “[a]ny of various animals, as the horse, ox, or sheep, which have been domesticated by man so as to live and breed in a tame condition.†Id.

This plain language definition of "domestic" describes Oak Creek's breeder deer. The deer killed have never been in the wild. They were all penned and hand-fed, raised in an environment that did not allow them to move freely beyond their confined area.

Based on the plain language definition of "domestic", we find that the "domestic animals" referred to in Section 273.020 are not limited to solely "traditional domestic farm animals", and would include Oak Creek's breeder deer which had been domesticated and lived and bred in a tame condition. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the Defendants' summary judgment motion. Point granted.

III. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Deer are wildlife thread

Deer are Wildlife
http://www.missouriwhitetails.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196006

Deer are Wildlife

 

[Hawk]

Link?

http://www.naelk.org/news.cfm?id=199

(Aug. 13, 2015) â€" A Missouri state court has entered a ruling blocking enforcement of new state regulations that threaten the existence of the state’s growing farmed-deer industry by preventing the importation of privately owned cervids into the state. *
In a 33-page ruling entered today, Judge Robert D. Schollmeyer of the 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri granted Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in the matter of Donald Hill, et al. v. Missouri Conservation Commission, et al.* The Court held that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their argument that the privately owned animals they raise and import for breeding and hunting (including white-tailed deer and other cervids, or hoofed animals) are not subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) as communally owned “wildlife resources of the state.â€
As a result, importation of privately owned cervids will be allowed under rules administered by the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA).* Prior to the adoption of the new rules by the MDC, the MDA had regulated the importation of cervids as livestock.* Those rules include, among other requirements, that the animal being imported come from a herd that is certified as having no positive test results for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), as well as a number of other diseases, for at least five years.* This program was designed by the United States Department of Agriculture.
The order prohibits the MDC from enforcing a controversial series of* new regulations that went into effect earlier this yearâ€"including a complete ban on importing cervids into Missouriâ€"until the legality of the regulations can be finally resolved.* The Court found not only that Plaintiffs had shown that the MDC likely was without the authority to issue the new regulations, but that the potential harm to Plaintiffs outweighed any threat posed by Chronic Wasting Disease, the stated reason for the regulations.*
“Without question, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm… up to and including the loss of their businesses should the regulations remain in effect throughout the upcoming hunting season,†the Court’s order stated. “By contrast, Defendants cannot show an imminent threat to Missouri’s cervid population or other public interests that would justify the regulations remaining in effect while their Constitutionality is finally resolved.â€
Contrary to Defendants’ argument that farmed cervids are communally owned “wildlife resources of the state,†the ruling noted that the Missouri Court of Appeals has already ruled that breeder deer owned by Plaintiff Don Hill were “domestic animals†under Missouri law.* The ruling also noted that the MDC’s own regulations require all “hoofed wildlife of the state†to be excluded from private hunting preserves, and that the department has said in other cases that deer on private hunting preserves are “the sole property†of the preserve owner. *
Despite the claimed risks of spreading Chronic Wasting Disease through interstate cervid movement, the Court noted that the MDC itself has imported free-ranging elk from Kentucky in recent years from herds using CWD certifications very similar to that required by the Missouri Department of Agriculture.* Defendants’ expert witness admitted that free-ranging cervids pose a greater risk of spreading disease-causing agents compared with animals in fenced-in preserves.**** *
The ruling follows a two-day hearing last month in Gasconade County Circuit Court. The next step in the litigation will be a final hearing on a request that the Court enter a judgment declaring the regulations invalid.* No date for that final hearing has been set.* The named Plaintiffs in the action are Donald Hill; Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch, LLC; Travis Broadway; Winter Quarters Wildlife Ranch, LLC; Troy Popielarz; Kevin Grace; and Whitetail Sales and Service, LLC.* Plaintiffs are being represented by Jean Paul Bradshaw, Jay Felton, Rachel Stephens and Eric Weslander of Lathrop & Gage LLP.* Mr. Bradshaw and Ms. Stephens represented Plaintiffs at the hea

 

[OutbackBio]

Better be careful what they ask for. Next step is some bunny hugging group getting 'pet ' shooting preserves shut down

 

[90acres]

Better be careful what they ask for. Next step is some bunny hugging group getting 'pet ' shooting preserves shut down

I hope that is what they get.

 

[Hawk]

Better be careful what they ask for. Next step is some bunny hugging group getting 'pet ' shooting preserves shut down

Wont happen. If they were pets, maybe... but they are livestock. They would have to shut down killing of all livestock aka meat production, and thats not going to happen.

 

[oneshot 1]

I hope that is what they get.

Why many on this Forum has been hunting in these areas during Off Season and enjoyed their selves very much?

They put a stop to this where will it end as far as hunting goes?

oneshot

They will put a stop to the Big Grin running Rabbits.

 

[Hawk]

Why many on this Forum has been hunting in these areas during Off Season and enjoyed their selves very much?

They put a stop to this where will it end as far as hunting goes?

oneshot

They will put a stop to the Big Grin running Rabbits.

Its just people using their emotions instead of their brain.

Remember boys, we gotta stick together on all these ossues or the antis win....

 

[20 feet high]

Its just people using their emotions instead of their brain.

Remember boys, we gotta stick together on all these ossues or the antis win....

Amen, hail to the 2016 season, the savior of hunting!

 

[OutbackBio]

Wont happen. If they were pets, maybe... but they are livestock. They would have to shut down killing of all livestock aka meat production, and thats not going to happen.

Really? How many farmers turn a steer out into the pasture to be shot with a rifle then butchered? Is that common livestock processing practice?

 

[BustinBucks]

Really? How many farmers turn a steer out into the pasture to be shot with a rifle then butchered? Is that common livestock processing practice?

How do cows normally get harvested? Archery tackle?

 

[OutbackBio]

How do cows normally get harvested? Archery tackle?

USDA has a standard for slaughter. If you start shooting 'livestock ' for sport you are asking for problems. I could care less, invite all the veggie/animal rights activists to your celebration party. ...
You guys don't understand the issues this could ultimately cause.

 

[Hawk]

USDA has a standard for slaughter. If you start shooting 'livestock ' for sport you are asking for problems. I could care less, invite all the veggie/animal rights activists to your celebration party. ...
You guys don't understand the issues this could ultimately cause.

Evidently MDC doesnt or didnt understand the issue either. It hasnt been a problem for elk (livestock) or buffalo (livestock) or exotics (livestock), why would it be for deer???

USDA has a standard for slaughter for animals whose meat is sold at market, not for animals whose meet is kept for personal use.

 

[flounder]

Evidently MDC doesnt or didnt understand the issue either. It hasnt been a problem for elk (livestock) or buffalo (livestock) or exotics (livestock), why would it be for deer???

USDA has a standard for slaughter for animals whose meat is sold at market, not for animals whose meet is kept for personal use.

LOL :rof2:

may be, but do they work, and have they been enforced ;

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2793911f-87a6-45ca-a300-a44d162d67cc/M2316-NOROS-072915.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Subject: Re: MAFF's views on the effects of pithing

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:16:25 â€"0800

From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

To: [email protected] References: 1

######### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########

Dear Lord Lucas and all,

> The Government has funded research which found evidence of

> contamination of jugular blood by fragments of brain tissue in one

> out of 16 animals which were pithed following stunning.

not much of a research program, but since they found contamination of one out of 16, this should merit further research ASAP.

> That research did not investigate whether any traces of brain tissue

> could be transported in the blood to the rest of the carcase.

as i said, not much of a study

> The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee reviewed the research

> findings and advised that there is no reason on the basis of current data

> to change UK practices of stunning and pithing during slaughter of cattle.

[this would translate to, not enough human deaths yet, to change practice...TSS]

this is unfortunate for U.K. public, and could further spread the agent. did they research all the data?

why did SEAC refuse to look at the research put forth in the LANCET of Sept. 1996 on Pithing by Tam Garland of Texas A.M.?

>From what i understand they refused the data because the research was not done in the U.K.???

Who/Why would care, if the research proved that pithing could further spread the agent?

Which in fact, it showed a published color photo of 14.5 cm of brain tissue in the LUNG. It had already gone through the heart. In their unpublished work they found 16.5 cm of brain tissue in the LIVER which means it blew through the heart and lungs to arrive in arterial circulation.

Their views...unfortunately for U.K.

Q.-- Research on the risks of contamination by stunning and slaughter procedures?

A.-- A MAFF-funded team at Bristol University has been carrying out research on the possibility that stunning and slaughter procedures may cause cattle carcases to be contaminated by brain tissue. An article about this research was published in the Veterinary Record on 16 Oct. 1999.

Q.-- What does this research show?

A.-- The researchers were looking for signs of brain tissue in the jugular vein (the blood vessel draining the head) of cattle which had been stunned using various different methods. They found brain tissue in jugular venous blood of one animal which had been stunned by a method used in the UK. This was one of sixteen animals which had been stunned using a penetrative captive bolt gun followed by pithing. None of fifteen animals stunned by penetrative captive bolt without subsequent pithing showed any sign of brain material in their blood.

Q.-- What is the significance of this finding?

A.-- The research has found evidence that neural contamination of the blood could result from stunning and pithing. If traces of brain tissue can be transported via the blood stream to the edible parts of the carcase, there could be implications for human health in relation to BSE.

Q.-- Does this research show that beef is unsafe?

A.-- No. The research did not demonstrate that meat can be contaminated by traces of brain tissue in the blood. Before any brain fragments in venous blood could get into the arterial system, they would have to pass through a network of very fine blood vessels in the lungs. Only very small particles would in principle be capable of doing so.

Q.-- What is SEAC's advice?

A.-- SEAC have advised that there is no reason on the basis of current data to change the common UK practices of stunning and pithing during slaughter of cattle.

Q.-- Why did SEAC take this view?

A.-- SEAC's view was that * the finding of brain tissue in the venous blood in one of a group of sixteen cattle slaughtered by penetrating captive bolt pistol and subsequent pithing provides insufficient data to give an accurate assessment of the frequency of this occurrence;

* there are no data as to whether or not neural tissue reached the arterial circulation in the single positive animal; * the very low number of infected animals at the late stage of the incubation period entering the food chain means that there is no need to alter current slaughter practices.

Q.-- What methods of stunning are used in the UK?

A.-- Animals are stunned to ensure immediate unconsciousness which lasts until death by bleeding. Of abattoirs in the UK killing cattle for sale for human consumption, about 80% currently use a penetrating captive bolt with pithing and about 20% a penetrating captive bolt without pithing.

Q.-- What is pithing?

A.-- Pithing is the insertion of a rod into the brain through the hole made by the captive bolt. It destroys brain tissue and speeds up brain death. Pithing is carried out, before hoisting the animal, to reduce the involuntary kicking actions of the stunned animal.

Q.-- Why is pithing used?

A.-- Pithing has benefits for both the safety of abattoir workers and animal welfare as it reduces involuntary kicking by stunned animals and removes any risk that a stunned animal may regain consciousness........

kind regards, Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA

Ralph Lucas wrote:

> > ######### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########

> > Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:

> > Whether the practice of "pithing" cattle at slaughter results in the

> contamination of the carcass with brain material; and, if so, what is the

> level of such contamination. (HL 1523)

> > The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness

> Hayman): The Government has funded research which found evidence of

> contamination of jugular blood by fragments of brain tissue in one out of 16

> animals which were pithed following stunning. That research did not

> investigate whether any traces of brain tissue could be transported in the

> blood to the rest of the carcase. The results were published in the

> Veterinary Record of 16 October 1999. The Spongiform Encephalopathy

> Advisory Committee reviewed the research findings and advised that there is

> no reason on the basis of current data to change UK practices of stunning

> and pithing during slaughter of cattle.

> > ############ http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

 

[flounder]

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Larry’s Custom Meats Inc. Recalls Beef Tongue Products That May Contain Specified Risk Materials BSE TSE Prion

http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2015/06/larrys-custom-meats-inc-recalls-beef.html

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That May Contain Specified Risk Materials Nov 9, 2012 WI Firm Recalls Beef Tongues

http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2012/11/wisconsin-firm-recalls-beef-tongues.html

Saturday, July 23, 2011

CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS, BEEF TONGUES, SPINAL CORD, SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS (SRM's) AND PRIONS, AKA MAD COW DISEASE

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2011/07/cattle-heads-with-tonsils-beef-tongues.html

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Wisconsin Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, October 17, 2009

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/wisconsin-firm-recalls-beef-tongues.html

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Nebraska Firm Recalls Beef Tongues That Contain Prohibited Materials SRM WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2009

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/10/nebraska-firm-recalls-beef-tongues-that.html

Thursday, June 26, 2008

*** Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/06/texas-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Missouri Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials SRMs

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/missouri-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html

Friday, August 8, 2008

*** Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials SRMs 941,271 pounds with tonsils not completely removed

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/08/texas-firm-recalls-cattle-heads-that.html

Saturday, April 5, 2008

SRM MAD COW RECALL 406 THOUSAND POUNDS CATTLE HEADS WITH TONSILS KANSAS

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/srm-mad-cow-recall-406-thousand-pounds.html

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Consumption of beef tongue: Human BSE risk associated with exposure to lymphoid tissue in bovine tongue in consideration of new research findings

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/consumption-of-beef-tongue-human-bse.html

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Consumption of beef tongue: Human BSE risk associated with exposure to lymphoid tissue in bovine tongue in consideration of new research findings

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/04/consumption-of-beef-tongue-human-bse.html

Friday, October 15, 2010

BSE infectivity in the absence of detectable PrPSc accumulation in the tongue and nasal mucosa of terminally diseased cattle

http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2010/10/bse-infectivity-in-absence-of.html

SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS SRMs

http://madcowspontaneousnot.blogspot.com/2008/02/specified-risk-materials-srm.html

Thursday, November 18, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS GALEN J. NIEHUES FAKED MAD COW FEED TEST ON 92 BSE INSPECTION REPORTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 CATTLE OPERATIONS

Dustin Douglass was indicted and charged with making a fraudulent application to the VA, in an effort to obtain benefits from injuries Douglas represented he suffered while deployed in Iraq. Based on his application, the VA provided benefits totaling $22,148.53. Douglass claimed he suffered various injuries and illnesses as a result of his service in combat. The investigation revealed Douglass had, in fact, been deployed to Iraq, but had served as a computer specialist, had never been in combat, and did not suffer the service-related injuries and illnesses he claimed to have suffered. Douglass was placed on supervised release for 3 years, and required to pay $22,148.53 in restitution. Galen Niehues, an inspector for the Nebraska Department of Agriculture, (NDA), was convicted of mail fraud for submitting falsified reports to his employer concerning inspections he was supposed to perform at Nebraska cattle operations. Niehues was tasked with performing inspections of Nebraska ranches, cattle and feed for the presence of neurological diseases in cattle including Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as “Mad Cow Diseaseâ€. Niehues was to identify cattle producers, perform on-site inspections of the farm sites and cattle operations, ask producers specific questions about feed, and take samples of the feed. Niehues was to then submit feed samples for laboratory analysis, and complete reports of his inspections and submit them to the NDA and to the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An investigation by the FDA and NDA revealed Niehues had fabricated approximately 100 BSE inspections and inspection reports. When confronted, Niehues admitted his reports were fraudulent, and that had fabricated the reports and feed samples he submitted to the NDA. Niehues received a sentence of 5 years probation, a 3-year term of supervised release, and was required to pay $42,812.10 in restitution.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ne/press_releases/2011%20Annual%20Report.pdf

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2010/11/united-states-of-america-vs-galen-j.html

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2007/2007-051(Farabee).pdf

 

[flounder]

10 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997

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/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/2007/ucm120446.htm

16 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997

2013

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

http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2013/12/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html

17 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE DECEMBER 2014 BSE TSE PRION

http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2014/12/fda-part-589-substances-prohibited-from.html

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

FDA U.S. Measures to Protect Against BSE

http://bseusa.blogspot.com/2015/08/fda-us-measures-to-protect-against-bse.html

kind regards, terry

 

[Hawk]

LOL :rof2:

may be, but do they work, and have they been enforced ;

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/2793911f-87a6-45ca-a300-a44d162d67cc/M2316-NOROS-072915.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Subject: Re: MAFF's views on the effects of pithing

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:16:25 â€"0800

From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

To: [email protected] References: 1

######### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########

Dear Lord Lucas and all,

> The Government has funded research which found evidence of

> contamination of jugular blood by fragments of brain tissue in one

> out of 16 animals which were pithed following stunning.

not much of a research program, but since they found contamination of one out of 16, this should merit further research ASAP.

> That research did not investigate whether any traces of brain tissue

> could be transported in the blood to the rest of the carcase.

as i said, not much of a study

> The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee reviewed the research

> findings and advised that there is no reason on the basis of current data

> to change UK practices of stunning and pithing during slaughter of cattle.

[this would translate to, not enough human deaths yet, to change practice...TSS]

this is unfortunate for U.K. public, and could further spread the agent. did they research all the data?

why did SEAC refuse to look at the research put forth in the LANCET of Sept. 1996 on Pithing by Tam Garland of Texas A.M.?

>From what i understand they refused the data because the research was not done in the U.K.???

Who/Why would care, if the research proved that pithing could further spread the agent?

Which in fact, it showed a published color photo of 14.5 cm of brain tissue in the LUNG. It had already gone through the heart. In their unpublished work they found 16.5 cm of brain tissue in the LIVER which means it blew through the heart and lungs to arrive in arterial circulation.

Their views...unfortunately for U.K.

Q.-- Research on the risks of contamination by stunning and slaughter procedures?

A.-- A MAFF-funded team at Bristol University has been carrying out research on the possibility that stunning and slaughter procedures may cause cattle carcases to be contaminated by brain tissue. An article about this research was published in the Veterinary Record on 16 Oct. 1999.

Q.-- What does this research show?

A.-- The researchers were looking for signs of brain tissue in the jugular vein (the blood vessel draining the head) of cattle which had been stunned using various different methods. They found brain tissue in jugular venous blood of one animal which had been stunned by a method used in the UK. This was one of sixteen animals which had been stunned using a penetrative captive bolt gun followed by pithing. None of fifteen animals stunned by penetrative captive bolt without subsequent pithing showed any sign of brain material in their blood.

Q.-- What is the significance of this finding?

A.-- The research has found evidence that neural contamination of the blood could result from stunning and pithing. If traces of brain tissue can be transported via the blood stream to the edible parts of the carcase, there could be implications for human health in relation to BSE.

Q.-- Does this research show that beef is unsafe?

A.-- No. The research did not demonstrate that meat can be contaminated by traces of brain tissue in the blood. Before any brain fragments in venous blood could get into the arterial system, they would have to pass through a network of very fine blood vessels in the lungs. Only very small particles would in principle be capable of doing so.

Q.-- What is SEAC's advice?

A.-- SEAC have advised that there is no reason on the basis of current data to change the common UK practices of stunning and pithing during slaughter of cattle.

Q.-- Why did SEAC take this view?

A.-- SEAC's view was that * the finding of brain tissue in the venous blood in one of a group of sixteen cattle slaughtered by penetrating captive bolt pistol and subsequent pithing provides insufficient data to give an accurate assessment of the frequency of this occurrence;

* there are no data as to whether or not neural tissue reached the arterial circulation in the single positive animal; * the very low number of infected animals at the late stage of the incubation period entering the food chain means that there is no need to alter current slaughter practices.

Q.-- What methods of stunning are used in the UK?

A.-- Animals are stunned to ensure immediate unconsciousness which lasts until death by bleeding. Of abattoirs in the UK killing cattle for sale for human consumption, about 80% currently use a penetrating captive bolt with pithing and about 20% a penetrating captive bolt without pithing.

Q.-- What is pithing?

A.-- Pithing is the insertion of a rod into the brain through the hole made by the captive bolt. It destroys brain tissue and speeds up brain death. Pithing is carried out, before hoisting the animal, to reduce the involuntary kicking actions of the stunned animal.

Q.-- Why is pithing used?

A.-- Pithing has benefits for both the safety of abattoir workers and animal welfare as it reduces involuntary kicking by stunned animals and removes any risk that a stunned animal may regain consciousness........

kind regards, Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA

Ralph Lucas wrote:

> > ######### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########

> > Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:

> > Whether the practice of "pithing" cattle at slaughter results in the

> contamination of the carcass with brain material; and, if so, what is the

> level of such contamination. (HL 1523)

> > The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness

> Hayman): The Government has funded research which found evidence of

> contamination of jugular blood by fragments of brain tissue in one out of 16

> animals which were pithed following stunning. That research did not

> investigate whether any traces of brain tissue could be transported in the

> blood to the rest of the carcase. The results were published in the

> Veterinary Record of 16 October 1999. The Spongiform Encephalopathy

> Advisory Committee reviewed the research findings and advised that there is

> no reason on the basis of current data to change UK practices of stunning

> and pithing during slaughter of cattle.

> > ############ http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############

Thats not really the point I was making flounder. Do USDA standards prohibit a farmer from going out in his field and shooting a cow?? If they dont its no different than someone shooting a livestock deer inside a fence, legally speaking.

 

[wiser1]

Oh Loord