Canada Strengthens Feed Controls

Canada Strengthens Feed Controls
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2006/
20060626e.shtml
June 26, 2006

Excerpt...

OTTAWA – The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is banning cattle tissues capable of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from all animal feeds, pet foods and fertilizers. The enhancement will significantly accelerate Canada’s progress toward eradicating the disease from the national cattle herd by preventing more than 99% of any potential BSE infectivity from entering the Canadian feed system.

The banned tissues, which are collectively known as specified risk material (SRM), have been shown in infected cattle to contain concentrated levels of the BSE agent. Canada has already applied identical protection to the human food system, where SRM are removed from all cattle slaughtered for human consumption. This measure is internationally recognized as the most effective way to protect the safety of food from BSE.

“This ban tightens already strong, internationally recognized feed controls and shortens the path we must follow to move beyond BSE,” said the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. “Preventing all these materials from entering the animal feed chain minimizes risks and demonstrates the commitment of Canada’s new government to take necessary, science-based actions to address BSE.”

Ongoing surveillance testing continues to indicate that the level of BSE in Canada is very low. This is attributable to Canada’s current feed ban, which has prohibited the use of SRM in feed for cattle and other ruminant animals since 1997. Extending SRM controls to all animal feeds addresses potential contamination that could occur during feed production, transportation, storage and use. Removing SRM from pet food and fertilizers is intended to mitigate the risk associated with the potential exposure of cattle and other susceptible animals to BSE through the misuse of these products.

The new outcome-based regulations enter into force on July 12, 2007, with additional time provided for small establishments to achieve full compliance. In the meantime, an awareness campaign will be undertaken to ensure that all regulated parties are fully aware of their responsibilities and have adjusted their practices and procedures as required. Special emphasis will be placed on working closely and in full cooperation with small abattoirs to help them transition to the new requirements and facilitate their long-term viability. The Government has set aside $80 million to work with the provinces to assist industry’s implementation of the new feed controls.

Enhanced feed controls complete the Government’s response to the detection of BSE, consistent with the recommendations of the international team of experts that reviewed Canada’s situation. As a priority, Canada first focused on human health protection, which was achieved through the removal of SRM from the food system. Attention then turned to animal health measures through intensified surveillance testing for BSE and increased animal tracing capabilities.

The removal of SRM from the feed system, pet food and fertilizers involves a broad range of diverse stakeholders and considerations. In developing the required regulatory amendments, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency undertook analyses and broad consultations with industry, provinces and territories, the animal health community, trading partners and the public. This preparatory work was essential to ensure that an enhanced feed ban would be effective, enforceable, environmentally sustainable and economically feasible. Governments have identified and will continue to pursue alternative uses for SRM, such as processes that can generate biofuel.

FDA Statement on Canadian Rule to Control BSE Risks

FDA Statement on Canadian Rule to Control BSE Risks
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01397.html
June 26, 2006

Excerpt...

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of the release of a final rule by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to extend protections in Canada against the risks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), so-called Mad Cow disease. The rule is an addition to existing Canadian measures to ban risky ingredients in animal feed – measures that have provided significant safeguards to protect the health of both United States and Canadian cattle fed animal feed from Canada, and thereby have protected consumers of beef in both countries.

The Canadian approach to BSE prevention is similar to FDA's approach, and the public health agencies of both countries have been in close touch as they have developed their respective regulations. Both countries' BSE feed rules are designed to forestall the spread of the disease and its related human form, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, through BSE-infected animal feed. The FDA BSE feed rule, which has been in effect since 1997, has proved its effectiveness as a key component of a tiered firewall against BSE; to date, there have been only three cows found with BSE in the United States, and each of them was either imported, or old enough to have consumed animal feed manufactured before the regulation took effect.

Nevertheless, since the detection of the first BSE-positive cow in the United States, FDA has been actively exploring various ways to further strengthen its existing feed rule which prohibits the use of certain mammalian protein in feed for cattle and other ruminants. Even though the risk of BSE is extremely low, in October 2005, the agency issued a proposed rule that would prohibit the use of certain high risk cattle materials in all animal feed to further reduce an already low probability event.

FDA and HHS are committed to continuing to protect animal health and consumers against the spread of BSE through animal feed in the United States.

Latest US Mad-Cow Cases Are 'Atypical' Form

Latest US Mad-Cow Cases Are 'Atypical' Form
Cattle Network
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=43897
June 12, 2006

Excerpt...

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Agriculture now believes the only two native-born U.S. cows to contract mad-cow disease were infected with a little understood and rare "atypical" strain that throws into question how the animals were infected.

The USDA's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said the latest two cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in the U.S. – found in Alabama and Texas – are abnormal, differing from the common form of the disease found in Canada and the U.K.

Mr. Clifford said the USDA has no plans to change the way it safeguards the U.S. beef supply. An internal USDA memo stated, "There is no evidence to justify any changes in surveillance methods, disease control or public-health measures already taken in the United States."

Mr. Clifford agreed, saying, "Until the science proves otherwise, we'll be treating all of these cases as BSE and the normal, typical BSE, and we still feel confident that the safeguards we have in place are effective." USDA regulations ban beef from nonambulatory, or "downer," animals from the human food supply and require that certain bovine tissue, such as brain and spinal-cord material, considered to be risky for carrying the BSE infection be removed before processing.

The U.S. also guards against cattle infection by prohibiting the feeding of bovine material to cattle because of the belief that BSE is spread solely through contaminated feed. But this "atypical" form of BSE found in the U.S. might not be spread through feed. Mr. Clifford said he didn't know if the two U.S. cows were infected through contaminated feed – as most normal cases are – or whether they simply developed the disease spontaneously or by some other way.

Linda Detwiler, a consultant to major food companies and former Agriculture Department veterinary-disease specialist, said, "There is so much that is unknown about the cases now." There are several theories as to how cattle could develop an atypical form of BSE, if it even is BSE that the Alabama and Texas cows contracted, she said.

Is Excessive Meat Consumption Ruining the Environment?

Meat And The Earth
Is Excessive Meat Consumption Ruining the Environment?
No -- Organic Claims Not Rooted In The Facts
The Wisconsin State Journal :: FORUM :: C1
Sunday, June 4, 2006
By KENNETH P. GREEN

Breeding fears of a changing climate and food raised "unnaturally," promoters of vegetarianism and organic foods argue that we should go vegan, or eat "organic" to save the planet.

Now there might be reasons to go vegan or organic, whether for ethical or individual metabolic reasons, but saving the earth isn't among them.

First, let's look at whether going vegan would stabilize the climate. Two vegetarian researchers recently published an article estimating that the typical American with a mixed diet puts out 1.5 tons more carbon dioxide each year than do people who consume only plants, which adds up to about 6 percent of U.S. emissions, but only 1.6 percent of worldwide emissions.

Yet U.S. greenhouse emissions are a shrinking part of the world's inventory, as China and India are growing quickly. Whatever benefit that might come of American's going vegan would barely be noticeable, and quickly erased by emissions of developing countries.

Now, let's look at the argument that eating organic food will help save the climate. Organic food sellers claim that organic farming is better than traditional farming because it uses less energy and chemicals to grow food. Some even claim that research published in Science showed organic farming was 50 percent more efficient than traditional farming. But what organic food purveyors don't talk about is that the same study showed crop yields were 20 percent lower.

When you factor that into the equation, organic farming was found to be about 19 percent more energy efficient per unit produced than traditional farming. Or is it?

As science writer Ron Bailey points out, the comparison wasn't really apples to apples. State-of-the-art organic farms were compared to older methods of traditional farming, not modern systems.

Traditional farming has become much more energy efficient than it was 20 years ago. And whatever gain organic farming produces has to be seen in a holistic context.

The same Science study found that after 21 years of organic farming, nutrients in the soil were being depleted badly: they were 34 percent to 51 percent lower than the nutrient levels found in traditionally farmed soils.

As chemist John Emsley observes in Nature, "Humans have a stark choice to make: do we farm four hectares of land organically' to feed 40 souls, or do we farm one hectare artificially' -- thereby leaving the other three to natural woodland and wildlife?"

Finally, let's ask whether organic food is healthier. While the purveyors of organics claim that organic foods are more nutrient rich, or lower in pesticide contamination, the data doesn't back them up.

The Institute of Food Technologists, an international, not-for-profit scientific society points out, "Organic foods are not superior in nutritional quality or safety when compared against conventional foods, yet organics do have the potential for greater pathogen contamination, and therefore greater risk of food poisoning."

Mark McLellan, an agricultural expert at Texas A&M University and former IFT president concluded, "Conventionally grown foods that utilize well-researched techniques including biotechnology benefit all consumers worldwide with a more abundant and economical food supply, foods of enhanced nutritional quality, and fresh fruits and vegetables with improved shelf life."

Another analysis looked at 100 studies claiming organic foods were healthier, but found they were mostly bogus. As researcher Diane Bourn observed, "To date, I feel there's no evidence that organic food is nutritionally superior," and, she explained, "When you look at those studies in detail, they're actually pretty awful. .... They're not really strong enough to be able to say that convincingly."

So, are vegetarianism and organic foods going to save the planet? I don't think so. They'll do virtually nothing for the climate, they'll deplete the soil, they'll require us to use more land area to grow the same amount of food, and we'll be exposed to equal or greater amounts of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

Waiter? I'll have the steak, please.