maybe the japanese know this too

[jensend]

this from an e-mail sent out by the livestock spec. with sask ag. no wonder everybody is suspicious of the americans.


In Sandy Russel's report on the Alberta Beef Industry Conference, Dr. Joyce VanDonkersgoed (AB Verified Beef program)was asked "If our industries are so linked why are we finding BSE cases and the US is not even though they have tested a higher number of animals?` Her comment was the "gold standard" tests (final confirmatory tests) in Canada and the US are different. She said the US version uses a test with 1 micoclonal antibody, compared to Canada's test which uses 15 microclonal antibodies. This could account for the difference.


The CFIA was asked to explain why Canada and the US would use different standards and why this has not been a issue in the debate over Canada being a source of BSE and the US is clean according to some of the opposition to the opening of the US border to Canadian cattle.



Following is the reply:



-----Original Message-----
From: Penny Greenwood [mailtogreenwood@inspection.gc.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:58 PM
To: jarmstrong@agr.gov.sk.ca
Cc: Nancy Lalonde; Marlene Longtin; <
Subject: Re: Testing for BSE- Canada and US proceedures: WEB RESPONSE / RÉPONSE DU WEB ID:2005/3-603



The international standard setting body for animal health and zoosanitary status is the OIE. This body sets the standards for conditions for countries to claim a particular disease status (eg. free) for specific diseases, stipulates conditions for trade in affected commodities (animals, semen, meat, etc), surveillance and also for diagnostic methodologies used to detect these diseases.



A member country could certainly debate the appropriateness of another member country's testing if they were not following the recommendations made in the OIE code and associated documentation.



Both the US and Canada utilize immunohistochemistry (IHC) as the gold standard test for BSE. In response to your comments regarding the antibodies used in this test by each country I have cut and pasted the relevant paragraph of Chapter 2.3.13 of the OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals as it discusses the standardization of the IHC test for BSE:



"In conjunction with, or even as an alternative to, the histopathological evaluation of medulla sections is the use of IHC to detect PrPres accumulation in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material (47, 94). Several protocols have been applied successfully to the IHC detection of PrP for the diagnosis of BSE (44, 47, 54, 94). Harmonisation toward a fully validated standardised routine diagnostic IHC method is desirable. However, it is likely that only the general principles can be prescribed, with precise methods being determined by each individual laboratory. A European Commission (EC) funded collaboration among European laboratories, which addressed the need for harmonisation of diagnostic methods, concluded that the total standardisation of methods was difficult and possibly unnecessary. Local conditions will always dictate a degree of inter-laboratory variation, and each method should be optimised for use with the standard tissues and common reagents (such as water) used locally. Historically there has also been a dependence on 'in-house' polyclonal antibodies, but the increase in commercially available monoclonal antibodies has reduced this variation significantly. It is much more important to achieve a standardised output, as monitored by participation in QA exercises, and by comparison with the results of a standardised model method."



The CFIA is aware of differences in the testing of BSE in Canada and the US. In dialogues with the US, the CFIA continues to detail the reagents that we use and believe are appropriate to use in the diagnosis of the United States. Nonetheless, the decision on the reagents used in the laboratory diagnosis of BSE is ultimately the choice of the individual member countries.

[rkaiser]

That's amazing jensend. I've heard this before, but never listened close enough.
This should be on the front page of the Washington Post. Right next to the Rcalf call to arms.

Once again where is the industry leadership of this country?
Too afraid to stir the pot, cause fear with the consumer, piss off the USDA?

My God producers in the USA are not even in financial dificulty and they are taking tactics with more aggression than the ones I have mentioned.

I'll be attaching this article in a letter to ABPCCA today demanding public attention.

[farmers_son]

Given this information, we can see how the U.S. had two cows that tested "non-negative" twice and then pass the gold standard test.

The quick tests that were used on two U.S. cows only would indicate false positives 1 in every 2000 tests. Since these two cows were each tested twice the odds of them testing "non-negative" and then passing the gold standard test would be 2000 times 2000 or 1 in 4 million.

To compare, you have a 1 in 2 million chance of being struck by lightning.

But wait a minute. The U.S. had two cows in a row test "non-negative" and then pass the gold standard test. The chances of both cows being so lucky are 1 in 4,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 in 4 quintillion.

This would be the equivalent of only ever buying two 6-49 tickets and having both of them win the big lottery. Obviously something other than luck was at work here.

Further, the U.S. is dramatically reducing the number of cows being tested, beyond using watered down tests that are skewed to give the results they want to find.

Everyone knows the U.S. has BSE. About the same minimal rate of BSE that Canada is finding. Only we are being honest about it.

[whiteface]

I like your stats, farmers-son, and appreciate information like this being kept in front of people to keep the U.S honest. Or in some cases, simply get them to be honest never mind keep them there. Have a good day all!

[kpb]

jensend, excellent information. rkaiser, please let us all know if you get any reply at all from the clowns running the producer groups.


kpb

[WoolyBear]

NO...... the reason that the US have had 2 false negatives or what ever in a row is that they get their stories made before they open their mouths in front of the media. UNLIKE CFIA.............

I think that this whole business has been blow so far out of proportion that is pathetic. TB, Brucellosis and Rabies, not to mention blue tonque and anaplasmosis will and do cause far more problems than BSE has or ever will. AND THEY ARE on BOTH sides of the border.