This is a little off topic (and the whole news report can be found here:
http://calgary.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/ca-mad-cow20050107.html ) I pasted it in total at the end of my post
My question(s) center around the following statments from the report
"The CFIA has confirmed that the infected cow ate cattle feed made with the remains of cattle. Cattle eating the remains of infected animals is the most common way BSE in contracted. Canada put a ban on feeding ruminant remains to cattle in 1997.
The CFIA has said that its testing can determine whether animal protein is present in feed, but not what kind of animal it came from.
"There still isn't any one test or combination of tests that are available to us to monitor feeds for compliance," the CFIA's Sergio Tolusso said. "
The report says the cow ate feed made with the remains of cattle -- she was born before 1997, is this the reason for this statement? Then the remark about "most common way BSE is contracted - I thought this was still being researched, in other words not deserving of the "most comman way BSE is contracted?
Next - they say a test can determine animal protein presence but not the type of animal it came from??? Is this an incomplete or confused news reporter or me or how have they been monitoring for compliance?
Keep in mind this is a CBC report, but it full of contradicting remarks.
BSE could have entered food chain: officials
Last Updated Jan 7 2005 01:49 PM MST
CBC News
Ottawa – Federal officials say cattle infected with mad cow may have been eaten by humans, but stressed the chance of contracting a potentially fatal illness is extremely low.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Friday that it's tracking 141 cattle born on the Alberta farm where Canada's second confirmed case of BSE was raised.
Some of these cows may have been made into animal or human food, agency spokesman, Dr. Gary Little told a news conference in Ottawa.
"At least a small number of them have been slaughtered and have entered the human-food system, potentially," he said.
He and other officials downplayed the risk to consumers, even though BSE can cause the human disease of Creutzfeldt-Jakob that killed at least 40 people in Britain in the 1990s.
Both Little and Dr. Paul Mayers, of Health Canada's Food Directorate, repeatedly said the risk that an animal carried the infection into the human food chain is "very low."
"We can't say that would be a zero risk event, because zero risk doesn't exist," Mayers said.
Little said investigators from his agency have quarantined nine dairy cattle born on the farm the year before and the year after the infected animal was born in October 1996. They plan to begin killing and testing the animals for BSE next week.
They're tracking a total of 93 dairy and 48 beef cattle from the farm to see whether the animals could have been exposed.
Test can't show what kind of animal remains in feed
The CFIA has confirmed that the infected cow ate cattle feed made with the remains of cattle. Cattle eating the remains of infected animals is the most common way BSE in contracted. Canada put a ban on feeding ruminant remains to cattle in 1997.
The CFIA has said that its testing can determine whether animal protein is present in feed, but not what kind of animal it came from.
"There still isn't any one test or combination of tests that are available to us to monitor feeds for compliance," the CFIA's Sergio Tolusso said.
The news may bolster the arguments of several U.S. politicians, who on Thursday unsuccessfully pressed for the March 7 reopening of the border to be delayed.
During a confirmation hearing for Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns, the nominee for agriculture secretary, North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad asked whether he would reconsider the decision to reopen the border.
"I am far from convinced that Canada is effectively enforcing its own regulations," Conrad said.
Johanns did not say whether he would revisit the decision made by the current secretary Ann Veneman.
Conrad and other politicians cited reports from U.S. regulators and Little's agency that suggested Canadian companies flouted a 1997 ruminant ban.
Some cattle feed has animal remains: report
The National Post reported Friday that CFIA tests have discovered that four brands of feed likely included parts from cattle or other ruminants.
Little, a veterinarian for the federal agency, defended Canada's testing regime on Friday.
"We have every confidence in our feed ban system and the systems that we have in place," he said.
Little said the probe into the country's second BSE case is progressing much faster than the first, which was discovered on a northern Alberta farm in 2003, because investigators knew the animal's birthplace and could track its movements without casting a wide net.
Officials confirmed the case on Jan. 3, just days after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would lift the 19-month ban that has devastated Canada's cattle industry. The U.S. will begin accepting live cattle under the age of 30 months.
The USDA said it recognized Canada as a "minimal-risk region" for BSE, in part because of measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease.
http://calgary.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/ca-mad-cow20050107.html ) I pasted it in total at the end of my post
My question(s) center around the following statments from the report
"The CFIA has confirmed that the infected cow ate cattle feed made with the remains of cattle. Cattle eating the remains of infected animals is the most common way BSE in contracted. Canada put a ban on feeding ruminant remains to cattle in 1997.
The CFIA has said that its testing can determine whether animal protein is present in feed, but not what kind of animal it came from.
"There still isn't any one test or combination of tests that are available to us to monitor feeds for compliance," the CFIA's Sergio Tolusso said. "
The report says the cow ate feed made with the remains of cattle -- she was born before 1997, is this the reason for this statement? Then the remark about "most common way BSE is contracted - I thought this was still being researched, in other words not deserving of the "most comman way BSE is contracted?
Next - they say a test can determine animal protein presence but not the type of animal it came from??? Is this an incomplete or confused news reporter or me or how have they been monitoring for compliance?
Keep in mind this is a CBC report, but it full of contradicting remarks.
BSE could have entered food chain: officials
Last Updated Jan 7 2005 01:49 PM MST
CBC News
Ottawa – Federal officials say cattle infected with mad cow may have been eaten by humans, but stressed the chance of contracting a potentially fatal illness is extremely low.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Friday that it's tracking 141 cattle born on the Alberta farm where Canada's second confirmed case of BSE was raised.
Some of these cows may have been made into animal or human food, agency spokesman, Dr. Gary Little told a news conference in Ottawa.
"At least a small number of them have been slaughtered and have entered the human-food system, potentially," he said.
He and other officials downplayed the risk to consumers, even though BSE can cause the human disease of Creutzfeldt-Jakob that killed at least 40 people in Britain in the 1990s.
Both Little and Dr. Paul Mayers, of Health Canada's Food Directorate, repeatedly said the risk that an animal carried the infection into the human food chain is "very low."
"We can't say that would be a zero risk event, because zero risk doesn't exist," Mayers said.
Little said investigators from his agency have quarantined nine dairy cattle born on the farm the year before and the year after the infected animal was born in October 1996. They plan to begin killing and testing the animals for BSE next week.
They're tracking a total of 93 dairy and 48 beef cattle from the farm to see whether the animals could have been exposed.
Test can't show what kind of animal remains in feed
The CFIA has confirmed that the infected cow ate cattle feed made with the remains of cattle. Cattle eating the remains of infected animals is the most common way BSE in contracted. Canada put a ban on feeding ruminant remains to cattle in 1997.
The CFIA has said that its testing can determine whether animal protein is present in feed, but not what kind of animal it came from.
"There still isn't any one test or combination of tests that are available to us to monitor feeds for compliance," the CFIA's Sergio Tolusso said.
The news may bolster the arguments of several U.S. politicians, who on Thursday unsuccessfully pressed for the March 7 reopening of the border to be delayed.
During a confirmation hearing for Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns, the nominee for agriculture secretary, North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad asked whether he would reconsider the decision to reopen the border.
"I am far from convinced that Canada is effectively enforcing its own regulations," Conrad said.
Johanns did not say whether he would revisit the decision made by the current secretary Ann Veneman.
Conrad and other politicians cited reports from U.S. regulators and Little's agency that suggested Canadian companies flouted a 1997 ruminant ban.
Some cattle feed has animal remains: report
The National Post reported Friday that CFIA tests have discovered that four brands of feed likely included parts from cattle or other ruminants.
Little, a veterinarian for the federal agency, defended Canada's testing regime on Friday.
"We have every confidence in our feed ban system and the systems that we have in place," he said.
Little said the probe into the country's second BSE case is progressing much faster than the first, which was discovered on a northern Alberta farm in 2003, because investigators knew the animal's birthplace and could track its movements without casting a wide net.
Officials confirmed the case on Jan. 3, just days after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would lift the 19-month ban that has devastated Canada's cattle industry. The U.S. will begin accepting live cattle under the age of 30 months.
The USDA said it recognized Canada as a "minimal-risk region" for BSE, in part because of measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease.
Comment