ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Vet. Sci., 12 July 2022
Sec. Livestock Genomics
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.935476
Novel Polymorphisms and Genetic Characteristics of the Prion Protein Gene in Pheasants
Kyung Han Kim1,2†, Yong-Chan Kim1,2† and Byung-Hoon Jeong1,2*
1Korea Zoonosis Research Institute, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, South Korea 2Department of Bioactive Material Sciences, Institute for Molecular Biology and Genetics, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, South Korea
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) also known as prion diseases, are fatal neurodegenerative diseases. Prion diseases are caused by abnormal prion protein (PrPSc) derived from normal prion protein (PrPC), which is encoded by the prion protein gene (PRNP). Prion diseases have been reported in several mammals. Notably, chickens, one species of bird, have not been reported to develop prion diseases and showed resistance to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) infection. However, genetic polymorphisms of the PRNP gene and protein structure of the prion protein (PrP) related to vulnerability to prion diseases have not been investigated in pheasants, another species of bird. We performed amplicon sequencing of the pheasant PRNP gene to identify genetic polymorphisms in 148 pheasants. We analyzed the genotype, allele and haplotype frequencies of the pheasant PRNP polymorphisms. In addition, we evaluated the effect of genetic polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene on pheasant PrP by the AMYCO, PROVEAN, PolyPhen-2 and PANTHER softwares. Furthermore, we compared the amino acid sequences of tandem repeat domains and secondary and tertiary structures of prion proteins (PrPs) among several animals. Finally, we investigated the impact of non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on hydrogen bonds and tertiary structures of pheasant PrP by Swiss PDB viewer software. We identified 34 novel genetic polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene including 8 non-synonymous SNPs and 6 insertion/deletion polymorphisms. Among the non-synonymous SNPs, the L23F, G33C and R177Q SNPs showed that they could have a deleterious effect on pheasant PrP. In addition, the R177Q SNP was predicted to show an increase in amyloid propensity and a reduction in hydrogen bonds of pheasant PrP. Among the insertion/deletion polymorphisms, c.163_180delAACCCGGGGTATCCCCAC showed that it could have a detrimental effect on pheasant PrP. Furthermore, secondary and tertiary structures of pheasant PrP were predicted to have structures similar to those of chicken PrP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on genetic polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene.
snip...
Discussion In this study, we found a total of 34 novel polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene including 8 non-synonymous SNPs and 6 insertion/deletion polymorphisms (Figure 1, Table 1). Except for c.750C>G (I250M) and c.766G>A (D256N), all genetic polymorphisms were in HWE (Table 1). Since c.750C>G (I250M) and c.766G>A (D256N) are non-synonymous SNPs, functional alteration caused by the non-synonymous SNPs may be related to genetic selection and induced the HWE violation. Among the 8 non-synonymous SNPs, 2 SNPs including G33C and R177Q were predicted to have deleterious effects on pheasant PrP by in silico analyses (Table 4). In addition, L23F was predicted to have damaging effect on pheasant PrP by PANTHER. Since the L23F and G33C SNPs, which are located in the interspecies-conserved signal peptide of PrP, were predicted to have a deleterious effect on pheasant PrP, further analysis of the signal peptide of pheasant PrP according to the allele of the pheasant PRNP gene is highly desirable. The R177Q SNP, which is located in the structured region of pheasant PrP, confers an increase in amyloid propensity (Table 4). Although R177Q has a higher AMYCO score than other polymorphisms, it does not exceed the threshold with a low amyloid propensity. It indicates that genetic polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene may be induced low amyloid propensity and pheasant PrP has a relatively stable protein structure. In addition, pheasant PrP with Q177 showed a reduction in the number of hydrogen bonds compared to pheasant PrP with R177. Since hydrogen bonds play a pivotal role in the stability of PrP and the stability of PrP confers resistance to the conformational changes in PrP (28), the R177Q SNP was thought to be a potential risk factor for prion diseases. Further investigation of the in vitro and/or in vivo evaluation of the amyloid propensity of pheasant PrP with the R177 allele and Q177 allele is needed in the future. However, although several genetic polymorphisms have strong genetic linkages, the effect of each SNP and insertion/deletion were only evaluated individually due to the internal setting of the software. Further evaluation of sequence variations of the pheasant PRNP gene according to haplotypes is highly desirable in the future.
We identified a highly polymorphic tandem repeat region of the pheasant PRNP gene (Figures 1, 3). The tandem repeat region of PrP is related to the activity of copper-related enzymes via the binding of copper ions in mammals (histidine) and birds (histidine, tyrosine) (29, 30). Since pheasant has additional copper binding sites, the insertion/deletion polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene would not cause critical dysfunction of the copper-related activity of pheasant PrP and genetic polymorphisms of the pheasant tandem repeat region seem to be more frequently observed than in mammals. Previous studies have reported that insertion/deletion polymorphisms in the octapeptide repeat region of the PRNP gene are associated with vulnerability to CJD (31). Since insertion/deletion polymorphisms are a potent risk factor for prion disease, further analysis on relationship between insertion/deletion polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene and susceptibility to prion disease is needed in the future.
We also found that the secondary and tertiary structures of the pheasant PrP have two β-sheets and three α-helices, similar to chicken PrP. Conversely, the pheasant PrP showed different secondary and tertiary structures from those of Pekin duck, which has 4 β-sheets and 5 α-helices. Since chickens showed resistance to BSE infection and pheasant PrP has a PrP structure similar to that of chicken PrP, pheasant PrP is predicted to have a relatively prion-resistant structure. Further validation is needed in the future using transgenic mice carrying pheasant PrP.
Conclusion
In the present study, we identified 34 novel genetic polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene including 8 non-synonymous SNPs and 6 insertion/deletion polymorphisms in 148 pheasants. Among the 8 non-synonymous SNPs, the L23F, G33C and R177Q SNPs were predicted to have a deleterious effect on pheasant PrP. In addition, the R177Q SNP induced an increase in amyloid propensity and a reduction in hydrogen bonds. Among the 6 insertion/deletion polymorphisms, the c.163_180delAACCCGGGGTATCCCCAC polymorphism was predicted to have a deleterious effect on pheasant PrP. Furthermore, the secondary and tertiary structures of the pheasant PrP are very similar to those of chicken PrP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on genetic polymorphisms of the pheasant PRNP gene.
WITH THE RECENT FINDINGS that CWD and Scrapie TSE PrP will transmit to pigs by oral routes, and the failure of the FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban, your playing with fire with relations to feed and TSE PrP in the USA feed system.
IT IS PARAMOUNT THAT THE 589.2000 Animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed be readdressed ASAP, IMMEDIATELY, to be enhanced not to include cervid, pigs, sheep, goats, camels, fowl, Pheasants, ostrich, birds...terry
The First Report of Polymorphisms and Genetic Characteristics of the Shadow of Prion Protein (SPRN) in Prion Disease-Resistant Animal, Chickens
Yong-Chan Kim- 1Korea Zoonosis Research Institute, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan, South Korea
- 2Department of Bioactive Material Sciences, Institute for Molecular Biology and Genetics, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, South Korea
Prion diseases are irreversible neurodegenerative disorders caused by the aggregated form of prion protein (PrPSc) derived from the normal form of prion protein (PrPC). Previous studies have reported that shadow of prion protein (Sho) interacts with prion protein (PrP) and accelerates the conversion of PrPC to PrPSc. In addition, genetic polymorphisms of the shadow of the prion protein gene (SPRN) are related to the vulnerability of prion diseases in various hosts. However, to date, polymorphisms and genetic features of the SPRN gene have not been investigated in chickens, which are prion disease-resistant animals. We investigated genetic polymorphisms of the SPRN gene in 2 breeds of chickens, i.e., Dekalb White and Ross, using amplicon sequencing. We analyzed genotype, allele and haplotype frequencies and linkage disequilibrium (LD) among the genetic polymorphisms. In addition, we compared the amino acid sequences of Sho among several prion-related species to identify the unique genetic features of chicken Sho using ClustalW. Furthermore, we evaluated the N-terminal signal peptide and glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchor using SignalP and PredGPI, respectively. Finally, we compared the number of SPRN polymorphisms between prion disease-resistant and prion disease-susceptible animals. We identified 7 novel single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including 1 synonymous SNP in the open reading frame (ORF) of the chicken SPRN gene. We also found significantly different genotypes, allele frequencies and haplotypes between the 2 chicken breeds. In addition, we found that the interaction regions between Sho and PrP and the NXT glycosylation motif were conserved among all species. Notably, sequence similarity was extremely low in the N-terminal and C-terminal regions between mammals and chickens. Furthermore, we found that chicken Sho was the longest N-terminal signal peptide, and the amino acids of the cutting site of chicken are different from those of mammals. Last, unlike other species investigated, omega-site and signal sequences of the GPI-anchor were not found in chickens. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of genetic polymorphisms of the SPRN gene in chickens.
SNIP...
Discussion
In the present study, we found only one synonymous SNP, c.183G>A (Ala61Ala), in the ORF of the chicken SPRN gene in 2 chicken breeds, Dekalb White and Ross (Table 1). Although significant differences in the distributions of the genotype and allele frequencies of this SNP have been observed between these two breeds, the impact of SNP on chicken Sho is expected to be non-significant because the SNP is synonymous, which does not affect the structure of chicken Sho. Notably, previous studies have reported that only 3 synonymous SNPs that do not affect the structure of equine Sho were found in horses, a prion disease-resistant animal (13, 14). The absence of genetic polymorphisms in the ORF of the SPRN gene, which affects protein structure and expression level, seems to be a unique characteristic of prion disease-resistant animals, including horses and chickens. Further studies are needed to investigate whether these characteristics of prion-resistant animals are also observed in dogs, another prion-resistant animal. Except for the synonymous SNPs in the ORF of the chicken SPRN gene, we also found 6 SNPs in the adjacent region of the SPRN gene (Table 1). However, the exon structure of the chicken SPRN gene has not been confirmed thus far. Thus, further unknown region analysis of the exon structure of the chicken SPRN gene using 5' and 3' rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE) is highly desirable to investigate the impact of the SNPs on the chicken SPRN gene in the future.
Although the interspecies conserved PrP interaction domain and glycosylation motif were conserved in chicken Sho, significant heterogeneity was identified in the N- and C-terminal regions of chicken Sho compared to prion disease-related animals (Figure 2). Since the N- and C-terminal regions are related to the signal peptide of trafficking and GPI-anchor, respectively (19, 20), we analyzed the signal peptide of trafficking and GPI-anchor (Figure 3 and Table 4). Notably, the N-terminal signal peptide of chicken Sho was the longest among several species investigated, and the amino acid of the cutting site was threonine, unlike the interspecies-conserved amino acid of the cutting site, alanine (Figure 3). In addition, the signal peptide of the GPI-anchor was not predicted in chicken Sho (Table 4). These results indicate that chicken Sho may show different localization compared to prion-related animals. Previous studies have reported that PrP is located on lipid rafts and that experimental mislocalization and anchorless PrP disturbed the conversion process of PrPSc (21, 22). Since the conversion process of PrPSc occurs on lipid rafts, different localizations of chicken Sho may affect the conversion process of PrPSc. Further investigation of the difference in localization of chicken Sho compared to other species is needed in the future.
Conclusion
In summary, we found 7 novel SNPs, including 1 synonymous SNP in the ORF of the chicken SPRN gene. We found significantly different genotype, allele, and haplotype frequencies between Dekalb White and Ross chickens. We found that the interaction regions between Sho and PrP and the NXT glycosylation motif were conserved among all species; however, sequence similarity was extremely low in the N- and C-terminal regions between mammals and chickens. We found that chicken Sho has the longest N-terminal signal peptide, and the amino acids of the cutting site of chicken Sho are different from those of mammals. In addition, omega-site and signal sequences of the GPI-anchor were not predicted in only chickens. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of genetic polymorphisms of the chicken SPRN gene.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Harash Narang's book THE LINK (i believe he went to work for NIH on TSEs, not sure if he is still there) there is a part about BSE IN HENS (page 135), that a farmer in kent in Nov. 1996 noticed that one of his 20 free range hens the oldest, aged about 30 months, was having difficulty entering its den and appeared frightened and tended to lose its balance when excited. Having previously experiencing BSE cattle on his farm, he took particular notice of the bird and continued to observe it over the following weeks. It lost weight, its balance deteriorated and characteristic tremors developed which were closely associated with the muscles required for standing (Fig. 15). In its attempts to maintain its balance it would claw the ground more than usual and the ataxia progressively developed in the wings and legs, later taking a typical form of paralysis with a clumsy involuntary jerky motion. Violent tremors of the entire body, particularly the legs, similar to those seen in BSE, became common sparked off by the slightest provocation. Three other farmers from the UK are known to have reported having hens with similar symptoms...
with this agent, i would not rule out anything or any species...TSS
From: TSS
Subject: TRANSMISSION STUDIES OF DOMESTIC FOWL AND OSTRICH......
Date: May 9, 2002 at 7:36 am PST
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
Greetings List Members,
just reading over a few old documents, i am pondering a few things out loud here, hope some find them interesting...TSS
snip...
SE1806
TRANSMISSION STUDIES OF BSE TO DOMESTIC FOWL BY ORAL EXPOSURE TO BRAIN HOMOGENATE
1 challenged cock bird was necropsied (41 months p.i.) following a period of ataxia, tremor, limb abduction and other neurological signs. Histopathological examination failed to reveal any significant lesions of the central or peripheral nervous systems...
snip...
94/01.19/7.1
also,
TRANSLATION
F437/91
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEUROPATHOLOGY OF THE RED-NECKED OSTRICH (STRUTHIO CAMELUS) - SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY -
* The Red-Neck Ostrich 'THE AUTOPSY' & TSEs
THE AUTOPSY
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:24:51 -0700
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." Subject: The Red-Neck Ostrich & TSEs 'THE AUTOPSY'
######## BSE #########
TRANSLATION
F437/91
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEUROPATHOLOGY OF THE RED-NECKED OSTRICH (STRUTHIO CAMELUS) - SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY -
H A Schoon, Doris Brunckhorst and J Pohienz Institute of Pathology, Veterinary University of Hannover
Introduction
Since the first appearance of BSE in Great Britain in l985 {review in TRUYEN & KAADEN, l990), research into the incidence, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and epidemiology of spongiform encephalopathies in humans and animals has been a focus of medical and public interest. In view of the growing number of reports of "new" spontaneously or experimentally susceptible species (cats: WYATT et al, l990; pigs: DAWSON et al, 1990), and of the associated questions with regard to the causal agent and in particular its transmissibility, it seems essential that agnopathogenetic individual cases should also be described. We therefore report below the preliminary findings of morphological examinations of three red-necked ostriches in 1986, 1988 and 1989, taking account of differential diagnostic factors.
History/subjects
The three ostriches (Flock A: Ostrich 1, female, adult, 150 kg; Flock B: Ostrich 2, female, adult, 80 kg; Ostrich 3: male, juvenile, 60 kg) came from two zoos in North West Germany and were euthenised because of their hopeless prognosis. Preliminary reports indicated that all three birds had presented protracted central nervous symptoms with ataxia, disturbance of balance and discoordinated feeding behaviour. Ostrich 2 had also exhibited pronounced lameness of the left lower limbs and the juvenile bird was suffering from perosis. The birds were fed on vegetable material, supplemented by commercial compound poultry feed and ''raw meat'', some of which was ''obtained from local small emergency slaughterers''. Comparable clinical pictures with fatal outcome in individual birds had occurred in both flocks: in a male bird at the same time (Flock A) and in several ostriches over recent years (Flock B).
Methods
Autopsy was followed in all three cases by histopathological examination of the following tissues: heart (several locations including coronary arteries and aorta), right and left pulmonary lobes, liver, kidneys, limb musculature, peripheral nerves (brachial plexus, sciatic nerve, in each case both left and right) and brain (left and right cerebral hemispheres, two samples each from the cranial/caudal third, two sagittal sections of the cerebellum, two cross-sections of the brain stem at the level of the optical lobes, four cross-sections from the medulla oblongata). The tissue material was fixed in formalin and embedded in Paraplast by the conventional method and the sections were evaluated using the following staining techniques and histochemical reactions: all organs: haematoxylin eosin staining; brain: PAS reaction (McManus), Ziehl/Neelsen staining (mod. Pearse), iron method (Lillie) for detection of neuromelanin, Turnbull's reaction (Bancroft & Stevens), alkaline Congo red method (Puchtler) (of SCOON & SCHINKEL, 1986), myelin sheath staining (Spielmeyer) (ROMEIS, 1968). In addition, unstained sections were examined by fluorescence microscopy (to detect autofluorescing lipofuscin granula) and the following lipid stains were applied to cryostat sections of liver, and of heart and skeletal musculature: Sudan III, Sudan black, oil red.
Findings
Ostrich 1
Brain: whilst only middle grade oedematisation of the neuropil was noted in the cerebral and cerebellar region, major changes were detected in the brain stem and medulla oblongata (Figures 1-3): in addition to pronounced vacuolation of the grey matter, optically vacant, ovoid to spherical vacuoles of differing sizes occurred bilaterally symmetrically in numerous neurons of the brain centres nucleus ruber, vestibular nucleus and reticular formation, in certain cases compressing the Nissl substance into a narrow fringe. In addition, fine granular pigments were found in the perikaryon of the neurons (with and without vacuoles), which showed a golden brown coloration in the haematoxylin eosin specimen, gave positive reactions to both PAS and Ziehl-Neelsen and also exhibited a yellowish-green spontaneous autofluorescence. Lillie staining to detect neuromelanin gave a negative result. The pigments thus exhibited the characteristics of lipofuscin (SCHOON & SCHINKEL, 1986). Ferruginous pigments and histochemically detectable amyloids were absent. Mild gliosis, isolated necrotic neurons and neuronophagia were observed only in the cranial locations of the brain stem.
Other findinqs: The ostrich exhibited marked adiposity and multiple pressure sores of both lower limbs. Moderate steatosis was found in the heart and skeletal musculature and in the liver. Multifocal arteriosclerotic plaques were also noted in the coronary and limb arteries.
Ostrich 2
Brain: Histopathological changes in the brain of this ostrich were limited to the medulla oblongata and were qualitatively consistent with those found in Ostrich 1, although confined, bilaterally symmetrically, to small localised areas and affecting only individual neurons. Gliosis reaction was almost entirely absent.
Other findinqs: The carcase was moderately well nourished and exhibited multifocal dermal and muscular necroses on both lower limbs in conjunction with lateral chronically destructive tarsitis and coxitis. In the internal organs, parenchymatous degeneration of the liver and kidneys and multifocal arteriosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries were noted.
Ostrich 3
Brain: Whilst no histopathological changes were found in the cerebrum and cerebellum of this ostrich, a high grade spongious dispersion of the neuropil existed in all locations examined in the brain stem and medulla oblongata (status spongiosus, Figure 4). Individual neurons contained optically vacant vacuoles of varying size, whilst numerous nerve cells exhibited clear signs of nuclear degeneration, in particular in the form of nuclear pyknosis. Low grade gliosis was also noted in all locations.
Other findinqs: The left lower limb of this bird exhibited defective positioning of the tarsal joint resulting from axial distortion of the long bones with applanation of the lateral [Rollkamm - word not found] and resultant instability of the tendons and inward turning of the tarsus.
Discussion
Although ostriches are widely kept in zoos, there are virtually no detailed descriptions of central nervous disorders with associated locomotor disfunction in this species. Neurological symptoms have been reported in connection with an outbreak of Newcastle Disease (KLOPPEL, 1969) and bacterial meningitis has been described (GRZIMEK, 1953), whilst other, sporadic cases have remained etiologically unexplained (ZUKOWSKY, 1959; LANDOWSKI, 1965). Disfunctions of the locomotor system of extracerebral origin occur predominantly in juvenile ostriches, emus and rheas in connection with muscular disease, perosis and trauma (FROIKA, 1982, 1983; MIHALIK & SRANK, 1982; SCHRODER & SEIDEL0 1989). One of the ostriches we examined was suffering from perosis, another from unilateral tarsitis and coxitis. All three, however, exhibited neuropathological findings consisting of a gradual, bilaterally symmetrical, spongiform encephalopathy of varying degree in the brain stem and medulla oblongata. No descriptions of such findings in this species appear in any of the literature we have been able to obtain.
These histopathologically confirmed brain changes are not consistent either with those caused by the classic viral infections in domesticated and wild birds or with those described by GRATZL & KOHLER (1957) and CHEVILLE (1966) as typical of Vitamin E deficiency-related encephalopathy in chicks. Instead, at the light microscopy level, both in qualitative terms and in the pattern of distribution in the central nervous system, there is a high degree of coincidence with findings which occur in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in mammals (scrapie, BSE, transmissible mink encephalopathy, chronic wasting disease of captive mule deer and elk) (HADLOW, 1961; BURGER & HARTSOUGH, 1965; HARTSOUGH & BURGER, 1965; WILLIAMS & YOUNG, 1980; WELLS et al, 1987, 1989).
The sporadic occurrence of vacuoles in individual neurons of the nucleus ruber in cattle was interpreted species-specifically as an artefact by FRANKHAUSER et al (1972). We are unable to judge whether a similar conclusion is also appropriate in the case of the ostrich, since our experience is based on only a small number of neuropathologically investigated cases. However, examination of the brains of twelve other ostriches which came to autopsy after death from extracerebral causes did not reveal any such findings. FRANKENHAUSER et al (1972) also emphasise that none were observed by them either in small ruminants or in the horse or the dog.
It is not possible at this time to determine whether and to what extent our neuropathological findings in an omnivorous bird, the ostrich, are etiopathogenetically consistent with those of the spongiform encephatopathies of mammals. There are no indications whatever in the relevant literature of even a hypothetical susceptibility in birds, although it must be said by way of qualification that clinical manifestations would be most unlikely in short-lived farm poultry, given the long incubation period. Moreover, Germany was officially free of scrapie and BSE at the time the condition appeared in the ostriches. The question of possible contamination of carcase meal is discussed in the work of TRUYEN & KAADEN (1990).
Conclusive diagnosis, especially in these cases, and in spite of the certainty ascribed by WELLS et al (1989) to histopathological diagnosis in cattle, also requires electron microscopic detection of so-called scrapie-associated fibrils (SCOTT et al, 1987; HOPE et al, 1988) and attempts, by inoculation of suspect brain material, to transmit the disease to the mouse (TRUYEN & KAADEN, 1990). Both of these procedures are normally carried out using fresh material, whereas we now have only tissue fixed in formalin and embedded in Paraplast.
Etiological consideration must also be given retrospectively to unidentified toxic influences, unknown species-specific deficiency diseases and unexplained predisposing metabolic conditions.
The etiologically unexplained neuropathological findings reported here, together with the multitude of unanswered questions in this connection, underline the need for further, systematic, standardised studies in this species, based on a larger sample of birds.
Summary and Literature
[Not translated]
Figures
Figure 1: Spongiform encephalopathy with oedematisation and vacuolation of the neuropil and "ballooning" degeneration of virtually all neurons in this area of the brain - brain stem. (H,-E.-Frgb., magnification x 120)
Figure 2: Detail of Figure 1. In 'addition to oedematisation of the neuropil, numerous, optically vacant vacuoles in the neurons, with partial displacement of the Nissl substance - brain stem. (H.-E.-Frgb., magnification x 480)
Figure 3: Medulla oblongara with high grade spongiform dissociation of the neuropil. (H.-E.-Frgb., magnification x 300)
Figure 4: Medulla oblongata. Status spongiosus with neuron degeneration. (H.-E.-Frgb., magnification x 300).
-----------------------------------------------------
even the late great Dr. Gibbs once told me personally that even if the Chicken did not contract a TSE, IF the chicken had been fed the TSE tainted feed and then slaughtered, the agent survives the digestinal tract to pass on to other species through feed...
TSS
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:07:58 -0500
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: FDA BSE Update - Pet Food from Canadian Manufacturer & MAD DOG DATA
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEUROPATHOLOGY OF THE RED-NECKED OSTRICH (STRUTHIO CAMELUS) - SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
OPINION on : NECROPHAGOUS BIRDS AS POSSIBLE TRANSMITTERS OF TSE/BSE ADOPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE AT ITS MEETING OF 7-8 NOVEMBER 2002
OPINION
1. Necrophagous birds as possible transmitters of BSE. The SSC considers that the evaluation of necrophagous birds as possible transmitters of BSE, should theoretically be approached from a broader perspective of mammals and birds which prey on, or are carrion eaters (scavengers) of mammalian species. Thus, carnivorous and omnivorous mammals, birds of prey (vultures, falcons, eagles, hawks etc.), carrion eating birds (crows, magpies etc.) in general could be considered possible vectors of transmission and/or spread of TSE infectivity in the environment. In view also of the occurrence of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in various deer species it should not be accepted that domestic cattle and sheep are necessarily the only source of TSE agent exposure for carnivorous species. While some information is available on the susceptibility of wild/exotic/zoo animals to natural or experimental infection with certain TSE agents, nothing is known of the possibility of occurrence of TSE in wild animal populations, other than among the species of deer affected by CWD in the USA.
1 The carrion birds are animals whose diet regularly or occasionally includes the consumption of carcasses, including possibly TSE infected ruminant carcasses.
C:\WINNT\Profiles\bredagi.000\Desktop\Necrophagous_OPINION_0209_FINAL.doc
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2009
American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and potential spreading of CWD through feces of digested infectious carcases
(Comment 20) One comment noted that species which appear to be resistant may in fact be unapparent carriers and over time could become sources of the BSE agent. Another comment added that failure to detect infectivity in tissues of experimentally infected pigs and chickens might be due to insufficiently sensitive bioassay techniques. Another comment suggested that because swine and poultry may be silent carriers, materials derived from swine and poultry should not be fed to cattle.
WOAH Designated ADAFSA’s Veterinary Labs as First Collaborating Centre for Camel Diseases in Middle East
Subject: OIE Camel Prion Disease
OIE Bulletin
Camel prion disease: a possible emerging disease in dromedary camel populations?
The identification of a new prion disease in dromedary camels in Algeria and Tunisia, called camel prion disease (CPD), extends the spectrum of animal species naturally susceptible to prion diseases and opens up new research areas for investigation.
Camel prion disease was identified in 2018 in adult camels showing clinical signs at the ante mortem inspection at slaughterhouses in the region of Ouargla (Algeria), and in 2019 in the region of Tataouine (Tunisia). It adds to the group of existing animal prion diseases, including scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease (CWD) in cervids and BSE (mainly in bovines). The detection of a new prion disease in the dromedary population requires attention and investigation needs to be carried out to assess the risks of this disease to animal and public health. As of today, very limited epidemiological information is available to assess the prevalence, geographical distribution and dynamic of the transmission of the disease.
Based on the clinical signs suggesting prion disease, CPD seems to have occurred in 3.1% of the dromedaries brought to the abattoir in Ouargla. Pathognomonic neurodegeneration and disease specific prion protein (PrPSc) were detected in brain tissue from three symptomatic animals (source:
In May 2019, the OIE received a report from Tunisia on a single case of a 12-year-old slaughtered dromedary camel showing neurological signs confirmed as CPD by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) based in Italy.
©B. Babelhadj/University Kasdi Merbah, Algeria
2
Is camel prion disease transmissible in natural conditions?
The involvement of lymphoid tissue in prion replication, observed both in the Algeria and Tunisia cases, is suggestive of a peripheral pathogenesis, which is thought to be a prerequisite for prion shedding into the environment. As with other animal prion diseases, such as scrapie and CWD, in which lymphoid tissues are extensively involved and horizontal transmission occurs efficiently under natural conditions, the detection of prion proteins in lymph nodes is suggestive of the infectious nature of CPD and concurs to hypothesise the potential impact of CPD on animal health. No evidence is currently available with which to argue for the relevance of CPD for human health. However, no absolute species barrier exists in prion diseases and minimising the exposure of humans to prion-infected animal products is an essential aspect of public health protection. As for the relationship between CPD and other animal prion diseases, preliminary analyses suggest that CPD prions have a different molecular signature from scrapie and BSE.
Actions on the follow up of CPD
Since the first description of CPD, the OIE promoted discussions on the impact of this new disease through the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases (Scientific Commission). The Scientific Commission consulted two OIE ad hoc Groups, one on BSE risk status evaluation of Members and the other on camelids. It analysed the information available from the Algeria and Tunisia cases to evaluate if CPD should be considered an ‘emerging disease’ based on the criteria listed in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code1 .
The OIE Scientific Commission noted that limited surveillance data were available on the prevalence of CPD and that the evidence was not sufficient to measure, at that time, the impact of the disease on animal or public health. Therefore, it was concluded that, with the current knowledge, CPD did not currently meet the criteria to be considered an emerging disease. Nonetheless, it was emphasised that CPD should be considered as a new disease not to be overlooked and called for the collection of further scientific evidence through research and surveillance in the affected countries and in countries with dromedary camel populations to measure the impact of the disease. As new scientific evidence becomes available, the OIE Scientific Commission will reassess whether this disease should be considered as an emerging disease.
The worldwide camel population is ~35 million head (FAO, 2019), 88% of which is found in Africa. The camel farming system is evolving rapidly, and these animals represent vital sources of meat, milk and transportation for millions of people living in the most arid regions of the world. This makes it necessary to assess the risk for animal and human health and to develop evidence-based policies to control and limit the spread of the disease in animals, and to minimise human exposure. As a first step, the awareness of Veterinary Services about CPD and its diagnostic capacity needs to be improved in all countries where dromedaries are part of the domestic livestock.
At the regional level, CPD was first discussed in the 18th Joint Permanent Committee of the Mediterranean Animal Health Network (REMESA) held in Cairo, Egypt, in June 2019 where an expert 1 a new occurrence in an animal of a disease, infection or infestation, causing a significant impact on animal or public health resulting from a) a change of a known pathogenic agent or its spread to a new geographic area or species, or b) a previously unrecognised pathogenic agent or disease diagnosed for the first time www.oiebulletin.com
3
from ISS, Italy, shared the knowledge available on the new disease with the 15 REMESA Member Countries. The discussion highlighted the need to strengthen surveillance systems in order to collect epidemiological data to inform the risk assessments. The results of these risk assessments will support the implementation of evidence-based policies to manage the risks in both animals and humans.
CPD was recently discussed atthe 15thConference of the OIE Regional Commission for the Middle East in November. During this conference, the CAMENET (Camel Middle East Network) launched a wide ranging proposal for training, coordinated surveillance and research on CPD. In addition, the ERFAN (Enhancing Research for Africa Network), a platform aimed at enhancing scientific cooperation between Africa and Italy, during its 2nd ERFAN meeting for North Africa, presented a project on CPD with the objective of increasing CPD coordinated surveillance in North Africa.
The OIE, through its Reference Laboratories for prion diseases, and by involving the above scientific initiatives, is keeping a close watch on the evolution of the disease to gather scientific evidence and to allow a proper and more thorough assessment of the risk associated with this novel disease.
◼ December 2019
Published: 06 September 2021
***> Chronic wasting disease: a cervid prion infection looming to spillover
Alicia Otero, Camilo Duque Velásquez, Judd Aiken & Debbie McKenzie
Veterinary Research volume 52, Article number: 115 (2021)
Very low oral exposure to prions of brain or saliva origin can transmit chronic wasting disease
Nathaniel D. Denkers ,Clare E. Hoover ,Kristen A. Davenport,Davin M. Henderson,Erin E. McNulty,Amy V. Nalls,Candace K. Mathiason,Edward A. Hoover
Published: August 20, 2020
We report that oral exposure to as little as 300 nanograms (ng) of CWD-positive brain or to saliva containing seeding activity equivalent to 300 ng of CWD-positive brain, were sufficient to transmit CWD disease. This was true whether the inoculum was administered as a single bolus or divided as three weekly 100 ng exposures. However, when the 300 ng total dose was apportioned as 10, 30 ng doses delivered over 12 weeks, no infection occurred. While low-dose exposures to prions of brain or saliva origin prolonged the time from inoculation to first detection of infection, once infection was established, we observed no differences in disease pathogenesis. These studies suggest that the CWD minimum infectious dose approximates 100 to 300 ng CWD-positive brain (or saliva equivalent), and that CWD infection appears to conform more with a threshold than a cumulative dose dynamic.
Research Project: TRANSMISSION, DIFFERENTIATION, AND PATHOBIOLOGY OF TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: Disease-associated prion protein detected in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged with the agent of chronic wasting disease
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PrPSc accumulates in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged intracranially or orally with the CWD agent, and can be detected as early as 4 months after challenge. CWD-infected pigs rarely develop clinical disease and if they do, they do so after a long incubation period. This raises the possibility that CWD-infected pigs could shed prions into their environment long before they develop clinical disease. Furthermore, lymphoid tissues from CWD-infected pigs could present a potential source of CWD infectivity in the animal and human food chains.
Research Project: Pathobiology, Genetics, and Detection of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: The agent of chronic wasting disease from pigs is infectious in transgenic mice expressing human PRNP
Author item MOORE, S - Orise Fellow item Kokemuller, Robyn item WEST-GREENLEE, M - Iowa State University item BALKEMA-BUSCHMANN, ANNE - Friedrich-Loeffler-institut item GROSCHUP, MARTIN - Friedrich-Loeffler-institut item Greenlee, Justin Submitted to: Prion Publication Type: Abstract Only Publication Acceptance Date: 5/10/2018 Publication Date: 5/22/2018 Citation: Moore, S.J., Kokemuller, R.D., West-Greenlee, M.H., Balkema-Buschmann, A., Groschup, M.H., Greenlee, J.J. 2018. The agent of chronic wasting disease from pigs is infectious in transgenic mice expressing human PRNP. Prion 2018, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, May 22-25, 2018. Paper No. WA15, page 44.
Interpretive Summary:
The successful transmission of pig-passaged CWD to Tg40 mice reported here suggests that passage of the CWD agent through pigs results in a change of the transmission characteristics which reduces the transmission barrier of Tg40 mice to the CWD agent. If this biological behavior is recapitulated in the original host species, passage of the CWD agent through pigs could potentially lead to increased pathogenicity of the CWD agent in humans.
cwd scrapie pigs oral routes
***> However, at 51 months of incubation or greater, 5 animals were positive by one or more diagnostic methods. Furthermore, positive bioassay results were obtained from all inoculated groups (oral and intracranial; market weight and end of study) suggesting that swine are potential hosts for the agent of scrapie. <***
>*** Although the current U.S. feed ban is based on keeping tissues from TSE infected cattle from contaminating animal feed, swine rations in the U.S. could contain animal derived components including materials from scrapie infected sheep and goats. These results indicating the susceptibility of pigs to sheep scrapie, coupled with the limitations of the current feed ban, indicates that a revision of the feed ban may be necessary to protect swine production and potentially human health. <***
***> Results: PrPSc was not detected by EIA and IHC in any RPLNs. All tonsils and MLNs were negative by IHC, though the MLN from one pig in the oral <6 month group was positive by EIA. PrPSc was detected by QuIC in at least one of the lymphoid tissues examined in 5/6 pigs in the intracranial <6 months group, 6/7 intracranial >6 months group, 5/6 pigs in the oral <6 months group, and 4/6 oral >6 months group. Overall, the MLN was positive in 14/19 (74%) of samples examined, the RPLN in 8/18 (44%), and the tonsil in 10/25 (40%).
***> Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PrPSc accumulates in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged intracranially or orally with the CWD agent, and can be detected as early as 4 months after challenge. CWD-infected pigs rarely develop clinical disease and if they do, they do so after a long incubation period. This raises the possibility that CWD-infected pigs could shed prions into their environment long before they develop clinical disease. Furthermore, lymphoid tissues from CWD-infected pigs could present a potential source of CWD infectivity in the animal and human food chains.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PrPSc accumulates in lymphoid tissues from pigs challenged intracranially or orally with the CWD agent, and can be detected as early as 4 months after challenge. CWD-infected pigs rarely develop clinical disease and if they do, they do so after a long incubation period. This raises the possibility that CWD-infected pigs could shed prions into their environment long before they develop clinical disease. Furthermore, lymphoid tissues from CWD-infected pigs could present a potential source of CWD infectivity in the animal and human food chains.
CONFIDENTIAL
EXPERIMENTAL PORCINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY
LINE TO TAKE
3. If questions on pharmaceuticals are raised at the Press conference, the suggested line to take is as follows:-
"There are no medicinal products licensed for use on the market which make use of UK-derived porcine tissues with which any hypothetical “high risk" ‘might be associated. The results of the recent experimental work at the CSM will be carefully examined by the CSM‘s Working Group on spongiform encephalopathy at its next meeting.
DO Hagger RM 1533 MT Ext 3201
While this clearly is a cause for concern we should not jump to the conclusion that this means that pigs will necessarily be infected by bone and meat meal fed by the oral route as is the case with cattle. ...
we cannot rule out the possibility that unrecognised subclinical spongiform encephalopathy could be present in British pigs though there is no evidence for this: only with parenteral/implantable pharmaceuticals/devices is the theoretical risk to humans of sufficient concern to consider any action.
May I, at the outset, reiterate that we should avoid dissemination of papers relating to this experimental finding to prevent premature release of the information. ...
3. It is particularly important that this information is not passed outside the Department, until Ministers have decided how they wish it to be handled. ...
But it would be easier for us if pharmaceuticals/devices are not directly mentioned at all. ...
Our records show that while some use is made of porcine materials in medicinal products, the only products which would appear to be in a hypothetically ''higher risk'' area are the adrenocorticotrophic hormone for which the source material comes from outside the United Kingdom, namely America China Sweden France and Germany. The products are manufactured by Ferring and Armour. A further product, ''Zenoderm Corium implant'' manufactured by Ethicon, makes use of porcine skin - which is not considered to be a ''high risk'' tissue, but one of its uses is described in the data sheet as ''in dural replacement''. This product is sourced from the United Kingdom.....
seems that the USA feed ban for ruminant protein is still a serious problem, so there seems to still be a risk factor for pigs and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE prion disease. now with the updated science showing that pigs are susceptible to the Chronic Wasting Disease TSE Prion ORALLY, and cwd running rampant in the USA, any use of porcine organs should be tested for the CWD TSE Prion...
CWD-infected pigs rarely develop clinical disease and if they do, they do so after a long incubation period. This raises the possibility that CWD-infected pigs could shed prions into their environment long before they develop clinical disease.
Furthermore, lymphoid tissues from CWD-infected pigs could present a potential source of CWD infectivity in the animal and human food chains.
See what DEFRA says;
For elk and deer considered at high risk for CWD, the FDA recommends that these animals do not enter the animal feed system. However, this recommendation is guidance and not a requirement by law.
However, given that non-ruminant feed produced in the USA may contain deer and elk PAP, it is theoretically possible that wild deer may be exposed to deer protein in legally imported non-ruminant feed. For this to occur, wild deer would need to access nonruminant feed (e.g. pig, fish and chicken feed) on farms near their habitat. Alternatively, wild deer may be exposed to CWD prion in the faeces of pets that have consumed and digested imported, contaminated pet feed. The frequency in which these routes may occur is unknown and is considered to be a greater than negligible risk with associated uncertainty.
***Moreover, sporadic disease has never been observed in breeding colonies or primate research laboratories, most notably among hundreds of animals over several decades of study at the National Institutes of Health25, and in nearly twenty older animals continuously housed in our own facility.***
Even if the prevailing view is that sporadic CJD is due to the spontaneous formation of CJD prions, it remains possible that its apparent sporadic nature may, at least in part, result from our limited capacity to identify an environmental origin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11573
O.05: Transmission of prions to primates after extended silent incubation periods: Implications for BSE and scrapie risk assessment in human populations
Emmanuel Comoy, Jacqueline Mikol, Valerie Durand, Sophie Luccantoni, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra, Capucine Dehen, and Jean-Philippe Deslys Atomic Energy Commission; Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
Prion diseases (PD) are the unique neurodegenerative proteinopathies reputed to be transmissible under field conditions since decades. The transmission of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) to humans evidenced that an animal PD might be zoonotic under appropriate conditions. Contrarily, in the absence of obvious (epidemiological or experimental) elements supporting a transmission or genetic predispositions, PD, like the other proteinopathies, are reputed to occur spontaneously (atpical animal prion strains, sporadic CJD summing 80% of human prion cases).
Non-human primate models provided the first evidences supporting the transmissibiity of human prion strains and the zoonotic potential of BSE. Among them, cynomolgus macaques brought major information for BSE risk assessment for human health (Chen, 2014), according to their phylogenetic proximity to humans and extended lifetime. We used this model to assess the zoonotic potential of other animal PD from bovine, ovine and cervid origins even after very long silent incubation periods.
*** We recently observed the direct transmission of a natural classical scrapie isolate to macaque after a 10-year silent incubation period,
***with features similar to some reported for human cases of sporadic CJD, albeit requiring fourfold long incubation than BSE. Scrapie, as recently evoked in humanized mice (Cassard, 2014),
***is the third potentially zoonotic PD (with BSE and L-type BSE),
***thus questioning the origin of human sporadic cases.
We will present an updated panorama of our different transmission studies and discuss the implications of such extended incubation periods on risk assessment of animal PD for human health.
===============
***thus questioning the origin of human sporadic cases***
===============
***our findings suggest that possible transmission risk of H-type BSE to sheep and human. Bioassay will be required to determine whether the PMCA products are infectious to these animals.
==============
https://prion2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/prion2015abstracts.pdf
***Transmission data also revealed that several scrapie prions propagate in HuPrP-Tg mice with efficiency comparable to that of cattle BSE. While the efficiency of transmission at primary passage was low, subsequent passages resulted in a highly virulent prion disease in both Met129 and Val129 mice.
***Transmission of the different scrapie isolates in these mice leads to the emergence of prion strain phenotypes that showed similar characteristics to those displayed by MM1 or VV2 sCJD prion.
***These results demonstrate that scrapie prions have a zoonotic potential and raise new questions about the possible link between animal and human prions.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19336896.2016.1163048?journalCode=kprn20
Prion diseases (PD) are the unique neurodegenerative proteinopathies reputed to be transmissible under field conditions since decades. The transmission of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) to humans evidenced that an animal PD might be zoonotic under appropriate conditions. Contrarily, in the absence of obvious (epidemiological or experimental) elements supporting a transmission or genetic predispositions, PD, like the other proteinopathies, are reputed to occur spontaneously (atpical animal prion strains, sporadic CJD summing 80% of human prion cases).
Non-human primate models provided the first evidences supporting the transmissibiity of human prion strains and the zoonotic potential of BSE. Among them, cynomolgus macaques brought major information for BSE risk assessment for human health (Chen, 2014), according to their phylogenetic proximity to humans and extended lifetime. We used this model to assess the zoonotic potential of other animal PD from bovine, ovine and cervid origins even after very long silent incubation periods.
*** We recently observed the direct transmission of a natural classical scrapie isolate to macaque after a 10-year silent incubation period,
***with features similar to some reported for human cases of sporadic CJD, albeit requiring fourfold long incubation than BSE. Scrapie, as recently evoked in humanized mice (Cassard, 2014),
***is the third potentially zoonotic PD (with BSE and L-type BSE),
***thus questioning the origin of human sporadic cases.
We will present an updated panorama of our different transmission studies and discuss the implications of such extended incubation periods on risk assessment of animal PD for human health.
===============
***thus questioning the origin of human sporadic cases***
===============
***our findings suggest that possible transmission risk of H-type BSE to sheep and human. Bioassay will be required to determine whether the PMCA products are infectious to these animals.
==============
https://prion2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/prion2015abstracts.pdf
***Transmission data also revealed that several scrapie prions propagate in HuPrP-Tg mice with efficiency comparable to that of cattle BSE. While the efficiency of transmission at primary passage was low, subsequent passages resulted in a highly virulent prion disease in both Met129 and Val129 mice.
***Transmission of the different scrapie isolates in these mice leads to the emergence of prion strain phenotypes that showed similar characteristics to those displayed by MM1 or VV2 sCJD prion.
***These results demonstrate that scrapie prions have a zoonotic potential and raise new questions about the possible link between animal and human prions.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19336896.2016.1163048?journalCode=kprn20
PRION 2016 TOKYO
Saturday, April 23, 2016
SCRAPIE WS-01: Prion diseases in animals and zoonotic potential 2016
Prion. 10:S15-S21. 2016 ISSN: 1933-6896 printl 1933-690X online
Taylor & Francis
Prion 2016 Animal Prion Disease Workshop Abstracts
WS-01: Prion diseases in animals and zoonotic potential
Transmission of the different scrapie isolates in these mice leads to the emergence of prion strain phenotypes that showed similar characteristics to those displayed by MM1 or VV2 sCJD prion.
These results demonstrate that scrapie prions have a zoonotic potential and raise new questions about the possible link between animal and human prions.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19336896.2016.1163048?journalCode=kprn20
Title: Transmission of scrapie prions to primate after an extended silent incubation period)
*** In complement to the recent demonstration that humanized mice are susceptible to scrapie, we report here the first observation of direct transmission of a natural classical scrapie isolate to a macaque after a 10-year incubation period. Neuropathologic examination revealed all of the features of a prion disease: spongiform change, neuronal loss, and accumulation of PrPres throughout the CNS.
*** This observation strengthens the questioning of the harmlessness of scrapie to humans, at a time when protective measures for human and animal health are being dismantled and reduced as c-BSE is considered controlled and being eradicated.
*** Our results underscore the importance of precautionary and protective measures and the necessity for long-term experimental transmission studies to assess the zoonotic potential of other animal prion strains.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=313160
GAME FARM INDUSTRY WANTS TO COVER UP FINDINGS OF INCREASE RISK TO CJD FROM CERVID
BSE INQUIRY
CJD9/10022
October 1994
Mr R.N. Elmhirst Chairman British Deer Farmers Association Holly Lodge Spencers Lane
BerksWell Coventry CV7 7BZ
Dear Mr Elmhirst,
CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE (CJD) SURVEILLANCE UNIT REPORT
Thank you for your recent letter concerning the publication of the third annual report from the CJD Surveillance Unit. I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with the way in which this report was published.
The Surveillance Unit is a completely independant outside body and the Department of Health is committed to publishing their reports as soon as they become available. In the circumstances it is not the practice to circulate the report for comment since the findings of the report would not be amended.. In future we can ensure that the British Deer Farmers Association receives a copy of the report in advance of publication.
The Chief Medical Officer has undertaken to keep the public fully informed of the results of any research in respect of CJD. This report was entirely the work of the unit and was produced completely independantly of the the Department.
The statistical results regarding the consumption of venison was put into perspective in the body of the report and was not mentioned at all in the press release. Media attention regarding this report was low key but gave a realistic presentation of the statistical findings of the Unit. This approach to publication was successful in that consumption of venison was highlighted only once by the media ie. in the News at one television proqramme.
I believe that a further statement about the report, or indeed statistical links between CJD and consumption of venison, would increase, and quite possibly give damaging credence, to the whole issue. From the low key media reports of which I am aware it seems unlikely that venison consumption will suffer adversely, if at all.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030511010117/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1994/10/00003001.pdf
Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie, kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)" The problem is emphasized by the finding that some strains of scrapie produce lesions identical to the once which characterize the human dementias"
Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the scrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer grievously.
snip...
76/10.12/4.6
IN CONFIDENCE
SCRAPIE TRANSMISSION TO CHIMPANZEES
IN CONFIDENCE
reference...
RB3.20
TRANSMISSION TO CHIMPANZEES
1. Kuru and CJD have been successfully transmitted to chimpanzees but scrapie and TME have not.
2. We cannot say that scrapie will not transmit to chimpanzees. There are several scrapie strains and I am not aware that all have been tried (that would have to be from mouse passaged material). Nor has a wide enough range of field isolates subsequently strain typed in mice been inoculated by the appropriate routes (i/c, ilp and i/v) :
3. I believe the proposed experiment to determine transmissibility, if conducted, would only show the susceptibility or resistance of the chimpanzee to infection/disease by the routes used and the result could not be interpreted for the predictability of the susceptibility for man. Proposals for prolonged oral exposure of chimpanzees to milk from cattle were suggested a long while ago and rejected.
4. In view of Dr Gibbs' probable use of chimpazees Mr Wells' comments (enclosed) are pertinent. I have yet to receive a direct communication from Dr Schellekers but before any collaboration or provision of material we should identify the Gibbs' proposals and objectives.
5. A positive result from a chimpanzee challenged severely would likely create alarm in some circles even if the result could not be interpreted for man. I have a view that all these agents could be transmitted provided a large enough dose by appropriate routes was given and the animals kept long enough. Until the mechanisms of the species barrier are more clearly understood it might be best to retain that hypothesis.
6. A negative result would take a lifetime to determine but that would be a shorter period than might be available for human exposure and it would still not answer the question regarding mans' susceptibility. In the meantime no doubt the negativity would be used defensively. It would however be counterproductive if the experiment finally became positive. We may learn more about public reactions following next Monday' s meeting.
R. Bradley
23 September 1990
CVO (+Mr Wells' comments)
Dr T W A Little
Dr B J Shreeve
90/9.23/1.1.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090506041740/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1990/09/23001001.pdf
IN CONFIDENCE CHIMPANZEES
CODE 18-77 Reference RB3.46
Some further information that may assist in decision making has been gained by discussion with Dr Rosalind Ridley.
She says that careful study of Gajdusek's work shows no increased susceptibility of chimpanzees over New World Monkeys such as Squirrel Monkeys. She does not think it would tell you anything about the susceptibility to man. Also Gajdusek did not, she believes, challenge chimpanzees with scrapie as severely as we did pigs and we know little of that source of scrapie. Comparisons would be difficult. She also would not expect the Home Office to sanction such experiments here unless there was a very clear and important objective that would be important for human health protection. She doubted such a case could be made. If this is the case she thought it would be unethical to do an experiment abroad because we could not do it in our own country.
Retrospectively she feels they should have put up more marmosets than they did. They all remain healthy. They would normally regard the transmission as negative if no disease resulted in five years.
We are not being asked for a decision but I think that before we made one we should gain as much knowledge as we can. If we decided to proceed we would have to bear any criticisms for many years if there was an adverse view by scientists or media. This should not be undertaken lightly. There is already some adverse comment here, I gather, on the pig experiment though that will subside.
The Gibbs' (as' distinct from Schellekers') study is somewhat different. We are merely supplying material for comparative studies in a laboratory with the greatest experience of human SEs in the world and it has been sanctioned by USDA (though we do not know for certain yet if chimpanzees specifically will be used). This would keep it at a lower profile than if we conducted such an experiment in the UK or Europe.
I consider we must have very powerful and defendable objectives to go beyond Gibbs' proposed experiments and should not initiate others just because an offer has been made.
Scientists have a responsibility to seek other methods of investigative research other than animal experimentation. At present no objective has convinced me we need to do research using Chimpanzees - a species in need of protection. Resisting such proposals would enable us to communicate that information to the scientist and the public should the need arise. A line would have been drawn.
CVO cc Dr T Dr B W A Little Dr B J Shreeve
R Bradley
26 September 1990
90/9.26/3.2
http://web.archive.org/web/20090506041605/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1990/09/26003001.pdf
this is tse prion political theater here, i.e. what i call TSE PRION POKER...tss
3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach was to accord it a very low profile indeed. Dr. A Thiermann showed the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought this was a fanatical incident to be avoided in the US at all costs.
snip...
PAGE 26
Transmission Studies
Mule deer transmissions of CWD were by intracerebral inoculation and compared with natural cases {the following was written but with a single line marked through it ''first passage (by this route)}....TSS
resulted in a more rapidly progressive clinical disease with repeated episodes of synocopy ending in coma. One control animal became affected, it is believed through contamination of inoculum (?saline). Further CWD transmissions were carried out by Dick Marsh into ferret, mink and squirrel monkey. Transmission occurred in ALL of these species with the shortest incubation period in the ferret.
The occurrence of CWD must be viewed against the contest of the locations in which it occurred. It was an incidental and unwelcome complication of the respective wildlife research programmes. Despite its subsequent recognition as a new disease of cervids, therefore justifying direct investigation, no specific research funding was forthcoming. The USDA viewed it as a wildlife problem and consequently not their province! ...page 26.
snip...see;
IN CONFIDENCE
PERCEPTIONS OF UNCONVENTIONAL SLOW VIRUS DISEASE OF ANIMALS IN THE USA
GAH WELLS
REPORT OF A VISIT TO THE USA
APRIL-MAY 1989
why do we not want to do TSE transmission studies on chimpanzees $
5. A positive result from a chimpanzee challenged severly would likely create alarm in some circles even if the result could not be interpreted for man.
***> I have a view that all these agents could be transmitted provided a large enough dose by appropriate routes was given and the animals kept long enough.
***> Until the mechanisms of the species barrier are more clearly understood it might be best to retain that hypothesis.
snip...
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2019
***> MAD DOGS AND ENGLISHMEN BSE, SCRAPIE, CWD, CJD, TSE PRION A REVIEW 2019
PLOS ONE Journal
*** Singeltary reply ; Molecular, Biochemical and Genetic Characteristics of BSE in Canada Singeltary reply ;
IBNC Tauopathy or TSE Prion disease, it appears, no one is sure
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., 03 Jul 2015 at 16:53 GMT
***however in 1 C-type challenged animal, Prion 2015 Poster Abstracts S67 PrPsc was not detected using rapid tests for BSE.
***Subsequent testing resulted in the detection of pathologic lesion in unusual brain location and PrPsc detection by PMCA only.
*** IBNC Tauopathy or TSE Prion disease, it appears, no one is sure ***
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2020
***> REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE OIE SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION FOR ANIMAL DISEASES Paris, 9–13 September 2019 BSE, TSE, PRION
see updated concerns with atypical BSE from feed and zoonosis...terry
Sunday, January 10, 2021
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission June 17, 2019
APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087] Singeltary Submission
Greetings APHIS et al,
I would kindly like to comment on APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], and my comments are as follows, with the latest peer review and transmission studies as references of evidence.
THE OIE/USDA BSE Minimal Risk Region MRR is nothing more than free pass to import and export the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy TSE Prion disease. December 2003, when the USDA et al lost it's supposedly 'GOLD CARD' ie BSE FREE STATUS (that was based on nothing more than not looking and not finding BSE), once the USA lost it's gold card BSE Free status, the USDA OIE et al worked hard and fast to change the BSE Geographical Risk Statuses i.e. the BSE GBR's, and replaced it with the BSE MRR policy, the legal tool to trade mad cow type disease TSE Prion Globally. The USA is doing just what the UK did, when they shipped mad cow disease around the world, except with the BSE MRR policy, it's now legal.
Also, the whole concept of the BSE MRR policy is based on a false pretense, that atypical BSE is not transmissible, and that only typical c-BSE is transmissible via feed. This notion that atypical BSE TSE Prion is an old age cow disease that is not infectious is absolutely false, there is NO science to show this, and on the contrary, we now know that atypical BSE will transmit by ORAL ROUTES, but even much more concerning now, recent science has shown that Chronic Wasting Disease CWD TSE Prion in deer and elk which is rampant with no stopping is sight in the USA, and Scrapie TSE Prion in sheep and goat, will transmit to PIGS by oral routes, this is our worst nightmare, showing even more risk factors for the USA FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban.
The FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban has failed terribly bad, and is still failing, since August 1997. there is tonnage and tonnage of banned potential mad cow feed that went into commerce, and still is, with one decade, 10 YEARS, post August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban, 2007, with 10,000,000 POUNDS, with 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. you can see all these feed ban warning letters and tonnage of mad cow feed in commerce, year after year, that is not accessible on the internet anymore like it use to be, you can see history of the FDA failure August 1997 FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED ban here, but remember this, we have a new outbreak of TSE Prion disease in a new livestock species, the camel, and this too is very worrisome.
WITH the OIE and the USDA et al weakening the global TSE prion surveillance, by not classifying the atypical Scrapie as TSE Prion disease, and the notion that they want to do the same thing with typical scrapie and atypical BSE, it's just not scientific.
WE MUST abolish the BSE MRR policy, go back to the BSE GBR risk assessments by country, and enhance them to include all strains of TSE Prion disease in all species. With Chronic Wasting CWD TSE Prion disease spreading in Europe, now including, Norway, Finland, Sweden, also in Korea, Canada and the USA, and the TSE Prion in Camels, the fact the the USA is feeding potentially CWD, Scrapie, BSE, typical and atypical, to other animals, and shipping both this feed and or live animals or even grains around the globe, potentially exposed or infected with the TSE Prion. this APHIS Concurrence With OIE Risk Designation for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0087], under it's present definition, does NOT show the true risk of the TSE Prion in any country. as i said, it's nothing more than a legal tool to trade the TSE Prion around the globe, nothing but ink on paper.
AS long as the BSE MRR policy stays in effect, TSE Prion disease will continued to be bought and sold as food for both humans and animals around the globe, and the future ramifications from friendly fire there from, i.e. iatrogenic exposure and transmission there from from all of the above, should not be underestimated. ...
Control of Chronic Wasting Disease OMB Control Number: 0579-0189 APHIS-2021-0004 Singeltary Submission
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0011 Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification
Sunday, February 14, 2010
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
snip...SEE FULL TEXT;
BSE research project final report 2005 to 2008 SE1796 SID5
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2021
Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE OIE, FDA 589.2001 FEED REGULATIONS, and Ingestion Therefrom
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion Origin USA?
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion Origin USA, what if?
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021
Importation of Sheep, Goats, and Certain Other Ruminants AGENCY: Animal APHIA, USDA, FINAL RULE [Docket No. APHIS–2009–0095] RIN 0579–AD10
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2020 IMPACT REPORT BSE TSE Prion Testing and Surveillance MIA
https://animalhealthreportpriontse.blogspot.com/2021/03/usda-animal-and-plant-health-inspection.html
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2020
Why is USDA "only" BSE TSE Prion testing 25,000 samples a year?
SUNDAY, MARCH 21, 2021
Investigation Results of Texas Cow That Tested Positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Aug. 30, 2005 Singeltary's Regiew 2021
***> The U.S. cases were animals born and raised in the U.S. (Texas, Alabama).
SEE HISTORY AT THE BOTTOM...TSS
2009 UPDATE ON ALABAMA AND TEXAS MAD COWS 2005 and 2006
Saturday, August 14, 2010
BSE Case Associated with Prion Protein Gene Mutation (g-h-BSEalabama) and VPSPr PRIONPATHY
(see mad cow feed in COMMERCE IN ALABAMA...TSS)
FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2022
USDA TAKES THE C OUT OF COOL, what's up with that?
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2022
APHIS USDA History Highlight: APHIS Combats Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Published Jun 1, 2022
Guidance Documents
- CVM GFI #67 Small Entities Compliance Guide for Renderers
- CVM GFI #68 Small Entities Compliance Guide for Protein Blenders, Feed Manufacturers, and Distributors
- CVM GFI #69 Small Entities Compliance Guide for Feeders of Ruminant Animals with On-Farm Feed Mixing Operations
- CVM GFI #70 Small Entities Compliance Guide for Feeders of Ruminant Animals Without On-Farm Feed Mixing Operations
- CVM GFI #76 Questions and Answers BSE Feed Regulations
- CVM GFI #158 Use of Material from Deer and Elk in Animal Feed
- CVM GFI #195 Small Entities Compliance Guide For Renderers—Substances Prohibited From Use In Animal Food Or Feed
- Feed Ban Enhancement: Implementation Questions and Answers
- Management of Certain Cattle Origin Material Pursuant to the Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food and Feed Final Rule (EPA)
Inspection conclusions are reported as Official Action Indicated (OAI), Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), or No Action Indicated (NAI).
An OAI inspection classification occurs when significant objectionable conditions or practices were found and regulatory sanctions are warranted in order to address the establishment's lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI inspection classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspections classified as OAI will be promptly re‐ inspected following the regulatory sanctions, in order to determine whether adequate corrective actions have been implemented.
A VAI inspection classification occurs when objectionable conditions or practices were found that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance, but do warrant advisory actions to inform the establishment of findings that should be voluntarily corrected. Inspections classified as VAI usually occur as a result of more technical violations of the Ruminant Feed Ban. Examples could include things such as minor recordkeeping lapses and conditions involving non‐ruminant feeds.
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report Official Action Indicated OAI
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = AF; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = DR; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 3 of 3 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = NL; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 2 of 2 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = OT; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = RE; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 1 of 1 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
CIN-DO 3010039727 Magnus International Group 679 Hardy Rd Painesville OH 44077-4574 OPR AF, DR, OT, RE HP 04/23/2018 OAI Y
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/BSEInspect/view/bse_results.cfm
=====
FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report
Data reported as of: 10/30/2021 Search by: Firm Type = TH; Decision = OAI; Sort by: HOME_DISTRICT, STATE, NAME Perform new search
Displaying records 1 to 2 of 2 records
FDA District Firm Id (FEI) Firm Name Street Address City State Zip Code Opr. Status Firm Type(s) Prgm Risk Last BSE Insp Date Last BSE Dist. Dcsn** Handles Feed for Rum. Animals?
PHI-DO 2516585 Erie Crawford Coop Assn 515 Erie Street Saegertown PA 16433 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 11/08/2018 OAI Y
PHI-DO 2520300 Musguire Milling & Feed Company 101 Colfax Street Enon Valley PA 16120 OPR DR, NL, TH DP 08/19/2016 OAI Y
=====
VOLUNTARY ACTION INDICATED VAI
there are to many BSE VAI to list, from my count, there were 359 VAI, so for anyone interested, go to excel;
ONE DECADE POST MAD COW FEED BAN OF AUGUST 1997...2007
PLEASE SEE THE ARCHIVED URL LINKS I PUT UP TO THE OLD LINKS, WILL WORK FOR A WHILE, SO DOWNLOAD FOR ANYONE SAVING THE TONNAGE OF BANNED SUSPECT MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE SINCE THE FAMOUS VOLUNTARY CALL IN 1997, BECAUSE APPARENTLY, SOMEONE DID NOT GET THE MESSAGE...terry
2007
10,000,000 POUNDS 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.
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
PAGE NOT FOUND
see archived page url link;
ALABAMA MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE 2006
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated, net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated, Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim’s" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend, Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted, Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020, Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated, Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs, Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED, net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs, Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs, Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
125 tons
DISTRIBUTION
AL and FL
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom dairy feds manufactured from concentrates, Recall # V-113-6
CODE
All dairy feeds produced between 2/1/05 and 6/16/06 and containing H. J. Baker recalled feed products.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Vita Plus Corp., Gagetown, MI, by visit beginning on June 21, 2006. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
The feed was manufactured from materials that may have been contaminated with mammalian protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
27,694,240 lbs
DISTRIBUTION
MI
______________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE
None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
?????
DISTRIBUTION
KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
see archived url link here;
=====
PRODUCT
Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
CODE
No code or lot number.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Mars Petcare US, Clinton, OK, by telephone on May 21, 2009. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Product may have contained prohibited materials without cautionary statement on the label.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
208,820 pounds
DISTRIBUTION
TX
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 26, 2009
###
see archived url link;
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL KY VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:19 pm PST
PRODUCT Bulk custom made dairy feed, Recall # V-114-6
CODE None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Burkmann Feeds LLC, Glasgow, KY, by letter on July 14, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing. REASON Custom made feeds contain ingredient called Pro-Lak, which may contain ruminant derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE ?????
DISTRIBUTION KY
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
archived url link here;
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22 71.248.128.67
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals, Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg), Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE a) Bulk b) None c) Bulk d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and by press release on June 16, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone meal..
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION Nationwide
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006
###
archived url link here;
Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTER ISSUED MAY 17, 2006
Date: June 27, 2006 at 7:42 am PST Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration
New Orleans District 297 Plus Park Blvd. Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: 615-781-5380 Fax: 615-781-5391
May 17, 2006
WARNING LETTER NO.. 2006-NOL-06
FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. William Shirley, Jr., Owner Louisiana.DBA Riegel By-Products 2621 State Street Dallas, Texas 75204
Dear Mr. Shirley:
On February 12, 17, 21, and 22, 2006, a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) investigator inspected your rendering plant, located at 509 Fortson Street, Shreveport, Louisiana. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 [21 CFR 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; products being manufactured and distributed by your facility are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
Our investigation found you failed to provide measures, including sufficient written procedures, to prevent commingling or cross-contamination and to maintain sufficient written procedures [21 CFR 589.2000(e)] because:
You failed to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into animal protein or feeds which may be used for ruminants. For example, your facility uses the same equipment to process mammalian and poultry tissues. However, you use only hot water to clean the cookers between processing tissues from each species. You do not clean the auger, hammer mill, grinder, and spouts after processing mammalian tissues.
You failed to maintain written procedures specifying the clean-out procedures or other means to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues into feeds which may be used for ruminants.
As a result . the poultry meal you manufacture may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues prohibited in ruminant feed. Pursuant to 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i), any products containing or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues must be labeled, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Since you failed to label a product which may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues with the required cautionary statement. the poultry meal is misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) [21 USC 343(a)(1)] of the Act.
This letter is not intended 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 these violations, and you should establish a system whereby violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such as seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.
You should notify this office in writing within 15 working days of receiving this letter, outlining the specific steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include an explanation of each step taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which the corrections will be completed. Include copies of any available documentation demonstrating corrections have been made.
Your reply should be directed to Mark W. Rivero, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 410, Metairie, Louisiana 70001. If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.
Sincerely,
/S
Carol S. Sanchez Acting District Director New Orleans District
archived url link here;
PLEASE NOTE, THE FDA URLS FOR OLD WARNING LETTERS ARE OBSOLETE AND DO NOT WORK IN MOST CASES.. I LOOKED UP THE OLD ONE ABOVE AND FOUND IT, BUT HAVE NOT DONE THAT FOR THE OTHERS TO FOLLOW. THE DATA IS VALID THOUGH!
Subject: MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERCE USA 2006 RECALL UPDATE
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: SAFETY <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:10:37 -0500
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS
IN COMMERCE AL, TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST
PRODUCT a) EVSRC Custom dairy feed, Recall # V-130-6; b) Performance Chick Starter, Recall # V-131-6; c) Performance Quail Grower, Recall # V-132-6; d) Performance Pheasant Finisher, Recall # V-133-6. CODE None RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Donaldson & Hasenbein/dba J&R Feed Service, Inc., Cullman, AL, by telephone on June 23, 2006 and by letter dated July 19, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON Dairy and poultry feeds were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 477.72 tons
DISTRIBUTION AL
______________________________
snip...
archived url link here;
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALLS ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006 KY, LA, MS, AL, GA, AND TN 11,000+ TONS
Date: August 16, 2006 at 9:19 am PST RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE - CLASS II
______________________________
snip...
______________________________
PRODUCT Bulk custom dairy pre-mixes, Recall # V-120-6
CODE None
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Ware Milling Inc., Houston, MS, by telephone on June 23, 2006. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON Possible contamination of dairy animal feeds with ruminant derived meat and bone meal..
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 350 tons DISTRIBUTION AL and MS
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) Tucker Milling, LLC Tm 32% Sinking Fish Grower, #2680-Pellet, 50 lb. bags, Recall # V-121-6;
b) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder Pellet, 50 lb. bags, Recall # V-122-6;
c) Tucker Milling, LLC #31232 Game Bird Grower, 50 lb. bags, Recall # V-123-6;
d) Tucker Milling, LLC 31227-Crumble, Game Bird Starter, BMD Medicated, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-124-6;
e) Tucker Milling, LLC #31120, Game Bird Breeder, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-125-6;
f) Tucker Milling, LLC #30230, 30 % Turkey Starter, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-126-6;
g) Tucker Milling, LLC #30116, TM Broiler Finisher, 50 lb bags, Recall # V-127-6
CODE All products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/20/2006
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Recalling Firm: Tucker Milling LLC, Guntersville, AL, by telephone and visit on June 20, 2006, and by letter on June 23, 2006. Manufacturer: H. J. Baker and Brothers Inc., Stamford, CT. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON Poultry and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein were not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 7,541-50 lb bags
DISTRIBUTION AL, GA, MS, and TN
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 9, 2006
###
see archived url link here;
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL AL AND FL VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125 TONS
Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006
Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST
PRODUCT
a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated, net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6; d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated, Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend, Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted, Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020, Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
h) CO-OP STARTER-GROWER CRUMBLES, Complete Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated, Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs, Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
k) CO-OP QUAIL FLIGHT CONDITIONER MEDICATED, net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
l) CO-OP QUAIL STARTER MEDICATED, Net Wt. 50 Lbs, Recall # V-111-6;
m) CO-OP QUAIL GROWER MEDICATED, 50 Lbs, Recall # V-112-6
CODE
Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006 RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.
REASON Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 125 tons DISTRIBUTION AL and FL
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2, 2006
###
see archived url link here;
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA EQUALS 10,878.06 TONS NATIONWIDE Sun Jul 16, 2006 09:22 71.248..128.67
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINE -- CLASS II
______________________________
PRODUCT
a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals, Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg), Recall # V-080-6;
c) PRO-PAK, MARINE & ANIMAL PROTEIN CONCENTRATE FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
CODE a) Bulk b) None c) Bulk d) Bulk
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and by press release on June 16, 2006.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone meal.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 10,878.06 tons
DISTRIBUTION Nationwide
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR July 12, 2006
###
see archived url link here;
Product Details
Product Description:
CalDensity Black Label, CalDensity White Label with HA, packaged in white plastic 5, 15, 25, 40, 60 lb pails with plastic liner and white plastic lid. Reason for Recall:
During an FDA inspection it was found that the CalDensity Black label and CalDensity White Label with HA product containers did not include the precautionary statement DO NOT FEED TO CATTLE OR OTHER RUMINANTS
Product Quantity: 50,935 lbs
Recall Number: V-209-2012
Code Information: 042009, 051009, 061209, 071509, 091009, 011510, 030310, 031610, 052610, 092410, 120110, 011211, 020111, 030911, 050111, 071111 & 090111. Classification: Class II Event Details
Event ID: 61880
Voluntary / Mandated:
Voluntary: Firm Initiated
Product Type:
Veterinary
Initial Firm Notification of Consignee or Public:
E-Mail
Status:
Terminated
Distribution Pattern:
Nationwide distribution: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA & WV. No shipments were made to foreign countries including Canada.
Recalling Firm:
Process Managers LLC
485 Gawthrope Dr
Winchester, KY 40391-8910
United States
Recall Initiation Date:
1/6/2012
Center Classification Date:
9/7/2012
Date Terminated:
1/24/2014
Product Details
Product Description:
Regular Chicken 50# Ingredients: Corn, Wheat, Oats, Oyster shells, Medium Grit, CCC, ADS, Plant Protein Products, Animal Protein Products, Processed Grain By-Products, Roughage Products, Animal Fat procession with DHA, etc
Reason for Recall:
During an FDA sample collection, the firms 50# Regular Chicken Feed was found to contain mammalian protein. The label does not contain the warning statement.
Product Quantity:
5400lbs (50lb bags)
Recall Number:
V-137-2013
Code Information:
8/6/2012
Classification:
Class III
Event Details
Event ID:
63743
Voluntary / Mandated:
Voluntary: Firm Initiated
Product Type:
Veterinary
Initial Firm Notification of Consignee or Public:
Other
Status:
Terminated
Distribution Pattern:
Midland MI area only.
Recalling Firm:
Cohoons Elevator Inc.
802 Townsend St
Midland, MI 48640-5362
United States
Recall Initiation Date:
11/21/2012
Center Classification Date:
2/8/2013
Date Terminated:
2/12/2013
V. Use in animal feed of material from deer and elk NOT considered at high risk for CWD
FDA continues to consider materials from deer and elk NOT considered at high risk for CWD to be acceptable for use in NON-RUMINANT animal feeds in accordance with current agency regulations, 21 CFR 589.2000.
Deer and elk not considered at high risk include:
(1) deer and elk from areas not declared by State officials to be endemic for CWD and/or to be CWD eradication zones; and
(2) deer and elk that were not at some time during the 60-month period immediately before the time of slaughter in a captive herd that contained a CWD-positive animal.
NAI = NO ACTION INDICATED
OAI = OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED
VAI = VOLUNTARY ACTION INDICATED
RTS = REFERRED TO STATE
OAI (Official Action Indicated) when inspectors find significant objectionable conditions or practices and believe that regulatory sanctions are warranted to address the establishment’s lack of compliance with the regulation. An example of an OAI classification would be findings of manufacturing procedures insufficient to ensure that ruminant feed is not contaminated with prohibited material. Inspectors will promptly re-inspect facilities classified OAI after regulatory sanctions have been applied to determine whether the corrective actions are adequate to address the objectionable conditions...end...TSS
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2017
*** EXTREME USA FDA PART 589 TSE PRION FEED LOOP HOLE STILL EXIST, AND PRICE OF POKER GOES UP ***
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2017
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE 2016 to 2017 BSE TSE PRION
FY 2016 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 2
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
FY 2015 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 2
FY 2014 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 2
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 1
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 1
FY 2013 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 5 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 5 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2012 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 5 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 4 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
FY 2011 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 5 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 4 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2010 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 3 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, *** 4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 3 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2009 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 10 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 4 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 3 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2008 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 7 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, *** 4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2007 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 3 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 3 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 2 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 1 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
FY 2006 Inspectional Observation Summaries
4132 21 CFR 589.2000(d)(1) 6 Protein blenders, feed manufacturers, distributors Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."Specifically, ***
4146 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 5 Written clean-out procedures Failure to maintain written clean-out procedures to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4145 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1) 4 Use of clean-out procedures Failure to use clean-out procedures or other means adequate to prevent carryover of protein derived from mammalian tissues to animal protein or feeds that may be used for ruminants. Specifically, ***
4131 21 CFR 589.2000(c)(1)(i) 2 Renderers Products that contain or may contain prohibited material fail to bear a label containing the caution statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants." Specifically, ***
*** PLEASE SEE THIS URGENT UPDATE ON CWD AND FEED ANIMAL PROTEIN ***
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2003-D-0432 (formerly 03D-0186) Use of Material from Deer and Elk in Animal Feed ***UPDATED MARCH 2016*** Singeltary Submission
SEE MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS AFER MAD COW FEED VIOLATIONS ;
Saturday, July 23, 2016
BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY BSE TSE PRION SURVEILLANCE, TESTING, AND SRM REMOVAL UNITED STATE OF AMERICA UPDATE JULY 2016
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion UPDATE JULY 2016
Monday, June 20, 2016
Specified Risk Materials SRMs BSE TSE Prion Program
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2019
USDA Announces Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Detection Aug 29, 2018 A Review of Science 2019
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0764 for Animal Feed Regulatory Program Standards Singeltary Comment Submission
17 years post mad cow feed ban August 1997
Monday, October 26, 2015
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEED VIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OIA UPDATE October 2015
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
FDA PART 589 -- SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN ANIMAL FOOD OR FEEDVIOLATIONS OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATED OAI UPDATE DECEMBER 2014 BSE TSE PRION
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
Saturday, August 29, 2009
FOIA REQUEST FEED RECALL 2009 Product may have contained prohibited materials Bulk Whole Barley, Recall # V-256-2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
FOIA REQUEST ON FEED RECALL PRODUCT 429,128 lbs. feed for ruminant animals may have been contaminated with prohibited material Recall # V-258-2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE $$$
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021
Prion Infectivity and PrPBSE in the Peripheral and Central Nervous System of Cattle 8 Months Post Oral BSE Challenge
Working Document on Camel Prion Disease (CPrD) 14/09/2020
Content: I. Introduction II. Camel prion disease III. Case definition IV. Epidemiological surveillance V. Biosafety VI. Capacity building VII. Early warning and response VIII. Risk factors IX. Knowledge Gaps X. References
I. Introduction
Camel prion disease (CPrD) is the last disease described in the family of prion diseases [1]. To date, it has been recognized only in Middle East of Algeria and in the neighboring region of Tunisia [2]. However, there are no known other initiatives of prion diseases surveillance in camels worldwide. CPrD might actually be limited to the already known geographic area in North Africa or spread undetected in other Countries, as a consequence of the movements of dromedaries along trans-Saharan commercial routes, the import/export trade flows of living animals and the traditional extensive and nomadic rearing systems.
According to the discussions in recent meetings of REMESA and OIE which indicated the need to extend the knowledge on CPrD spread in Countries where camels are extensively reared and considered as a part of the domestic livestock [3], and according to the initiative from CAMENET member countries to assess the risk in the CAMENET region, this working document aims to provide countries with the main technical and scientific knowledge necessary to implement surveillance programs on camel prion disease in its own territory. Basic information contained in this document may also be helpful for the possible design of contingency plans.
The present working document is an 'alive' document. It should be regularly reviewed and updated as further information becomes available.
II. Camel prion disease1
Camel prion disease (CPrD) was diagnosed in 2018 in three adult camels showing clinical signs at the ante-mortem inspection at an abattoir in the region of Ouargla (Algeria) [1]. According to the published report symptoms suggesting prion disease occurred in 3.1% of dromedaries brought for slaughter to the Ouargla abattoir in 2015–2016. More recently, in 2019, the same disease was reported in the region of Tataouine (Tunisia) [2]. CPrD adds to the group of animal prion diseases,
1 Modified from the OIE Bulletin: https://oiebulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/OIE-NewsDecember-2019-Camel-priondisease.pdf?utm_source=World+Organisation+for+Animal+Health+%E2%80%93+OIE+Bulletin&utm_c ampaign=388d499799- EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_05_09_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7694a173d1- 388d499799-54758659
including scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease (CWD) in cervids and Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle. As of today, very limited epidemiological information is available about the prevalence, geographical distribution and mode of transmission of the disease.
The involvement of lymphoid tissue in prion replication, observed both in the Algerian and Tunisian cases [1,2], is suggestive of a peripheral pathogenesis, which is thought to be a prerequisite for prion shedding into the environment. As with other animal prion diseases, such as scrapie and CWD, in which lymphoid tissues are extensively involved and horizontal transmission occurs efficiently under natural conditions, the detection of prion proteins in lymph nodes is suggestive of the infectious nature of CPrD and concurs to hypothesize the potential impact of CPrD on animal health. No evidence is currently available with which to argue for the relevance of CPrD for human health. However, no absolute species barrier exists in prion diseases and minimizing the exposure of humans to prion-infected animal products is an essential aspect of public health protection.
The worldwide camel population is ~35 million head, 88% of which is found in Africa [4]. The camel farming system is evolving rapidly, and these animals represent vital sources of meat, milk and transportation for millions of people living in the most arid regions of the world. This makes it necessary to assess the risk for animal and human health and to develop evidence-based policies to control and limit the spread of the disease in animals, and to minimize human exposure. As a first step, the awareness of Veterinary Services about CPrD and its diagnostic capacity needs to be improved in all countries where dromedaries are part of the domestic livestock.
Since the first description of CPrD, the OIE promoted discussions on the impact of this new disease through the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases (Scientific Commission). It evaluated if CPrD should be considered an ‘emerging disease’ based on the criteria listed in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. The OIE Scientific Commission noted that limited surveillance data were available on the prevalence of CPrD and that the evidence was not enough to measure, at that time, the impact of the disease on animal or public health. Therefore, it was concluded that, with the current knowledge, CPrD did not currently meet the criteria to be considered an emerging disease.
Nonetheless, it was emphasized that CPrD should be considered as a new disease not to be overlooked and called for the collection of further scientific evidence through research and surveillance in the affected countries and in countries with dromedary camel populations to measure the impact of the disease. As new scientific evidence becomes available, the OIE Scientific Commission will reassess whether this disease should be considered as an emerging disease. At the regional level, CPrD was first discussed in the 18th Joint Permanent Committee of the Mediterranean Animal Health Network (REMESA) held in Cairo, Egypt, in June 2019 and at the 15th Conference of the OIE Regional Commission for the Middle East in November. During this conference, the CAMENET launched a wide-ranging proposal for training, coordinated surveillance and research on CPrD. In addition, the ERFAN (Enhancing Research for Africa Network), a platform aimed at enhancing scientific cooperation between Africa and Italy, during its 2nd ERFAN meeting for North Africa, presented a project on CPrD with the objective of increasing CPrD coordinated surveillance in North Africa.
The OIE, through its Reference Laboratories for prion diseases, and by involving the above scientific initiatives, is keeping a close watch on the evolution of the disease to gather scientific evidence and to allow a proper and more thorough assessment of the risk associated with this novel disease.
III. Case definition
snip...see;
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Working Document on Camel Prion Disease (CPrD) 14/09/2020
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021
***> Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: the effect of oral exposure dose on attack rate and incubation period in cattle
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
RE: Inactivation of porcine endogenous retrovirus in pigs using CRISPR-Cas9
TERRY S. SINGELTARY SR.- retired
- Mr.