Re: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ??? December 23, 2002 at 12:12 pm PST
Subject: Re: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:56:07 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
References:
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy#########
Greetings and Happy Holidays,
hi Linda,
many thanks for this reply, was just checking in to see
if anything new had happened since our last correspondence.
i thought i had missed something?
> Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than
> the old one, and it does not lend itself to presenting data in
> a simple spreadsheet as we did in the past.
how convenient;-) i had no problems with the old one...
> Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this problem,
> and we do plan to post this data in the future.
thank you, if USDA/APHIS are lucky, i will hold my breath until
that time;-)
nothing personal Linda, take care, and may the New Year bring
PEACE...
TSS
CVM HomePage wrote:
> Dear Mr. Singeltary:
>
> As mentioned in my e-mail of December 4, FDA's Center for Veterinary
> Medicine never posted the Warning Letters for ruminant feed violations on
> our "BSE" page -- http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bse/bsetoc.html. However,
> these Warning Letters have been included on the FDA "Warning Letters" page
> -- http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm that is located on the FDA's
> "Electronic Freedom of Information Reading Room" page. But, not as a
> separate category of Warning Letters for violations of the ruminant feed
> rules.
>
> I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite a few Warning
> Letters have been posted since May; however, I did not find any more recent
> than May 7, 2002, regarding "Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
> Feed/Misbranded" (ruminant feed rule violations.) You may wish to file a
> Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to determine if more recent
> Warning Letters have been issued, but not posted on the FDA Home Page.
> Information about filing a FOIA request may be found at:
> http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foiahand.html
>
> As mentioned on the "CVM and Ruminant Feed (BSE) Inspections" site --
>
> "After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that was used to
> compile these listings. The Agency started a new database on April 15, 2002,
> and future updates on BSE enforcement and inspectional findings will draw
> from it. The format of the information presented here may change, due to
> design changes of the new database. This site will be updated after a period
> of time that allows for transition into the new database system."
>
> Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than the old one,
> and it does not lend itself to presenting data in a simple spreadsheet as we
> did in the past. Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this
> problem, and we do plan to post this data in the future.
>
> We have nothing new to report at this time.
>
> I hope that this information is helpful.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Linda A. Grassie for the FDA Home Page
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:flounder@wt.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:03 PM
> To: CVMHomeP@cvm.fda.gov
> Subject: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> i have noticed the inspections and warning letters
> from firms not complying with the ruminant-to-ruminant
> feed ban violations has not been updated since (March 11, 2002)?
>
> 2) Firms Currently Considered as Not in Compliance with the BSE Feed Rule
>
> The following spreadsheet is a subset of Spreadsheet 1 and contains the
> name, address, and firm identifier of all firms that were considered as
> not being in compliance with the BSE feed regulation at their most
> recent inspection, according to the BSE inspection database. Compliance
> status was determined by examination of the BSE Inspection Checklist.
> The dates of the inspections and the specific BSE provision violations
> for each inspection are also included. The listing is organized
> alphabetically first by the FDA District and then by the state in which
> the inspected facility is located.
>
> Most Recent BSE Inspections, Firms Not in Compliance
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.htm
>
> i would be interested to know if all firms are now complying and that no
> warning letters have been issued since may of 2002, or have they just not
> been posted?
>
> if so, how can i locate them?
>
> thank you,
> kind regards,
> terry
>
>
########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
Subject: Re: re-USA BSE/TSE RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN VIOLATIONS ''cover-up''
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:28:24 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
References: <3dee84d2.705.1804289383@wt.net>
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy#########
Greetings List Members,
for those that were interested, it seems they have taken
the 'animal protein' search title and only listed
4 with that search title. this is the same search title
i have used since searching ruminant-to-ruminant feed
ban warning letters for the last 5 years. it seems they
have archived all of them and they are now not listed
in search, unless you go back to archive, except for these
four. i knew they had to be somewhere, but still is
odd we now have to file FOIA to see what we were able
to see for the last five years every Tues.? i had read
a while back Senator Kennedy was very worried due to the
fact that the new administration had decided to cease
posted many of these warning letters, or just to stop issuing
them all together? at any rate, it does seem that they have
ceased to document them since may 2002, if they are continuing
to even issue them at all? or maybe we could be lucky enough
as to have not had any violations since may;-) i guess if i
want to find out, i must file FOIA, and by the time they
send me that data, they will probably post on WWW???
round and round we go, when we stop, nobody knows;
> Again, I am not involved in posting warning letters
> on that page, so I cannot answer your question on where
> newer letters on ruminant feed violations are being posted.
> In fact, I do not know if FDA has issued any Warning Letters
> on this subject since last May. You will need to file a FOIA
> request for that information.
for anyone interested, here are the urls for archive,
i did not look under 'M' medicated feeds, i remember
some time ago some BSE warning letters were for medicated
feeds as well.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=A
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject_archive.cfm?FL=A
TSS
flounder wrote:
> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy#########
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations ???
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:49:19 -0500
> From: "Grassie, Linda A"
> To: "'flounder@wt.net'"
> CC: "Bataller, Neal"
>
> Dear Mr. Singeltary:
>
> Your request for information on violations of FDA's ruminant
> feed rule
> has been forwarded to me for reply.
>
> We (FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine) never posted the
> Warning
> Letters for ruminant feed violations on our "BSE" page --
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bse/bsetoc.html. However,
> these Warning
> Letters have been included on the FDA "Warning Letters" page
> --
>
> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm
> that is located on the FDA's "Electronic Freedom of
> Information Reading
> Room" page. But, not as a separate category of Warning
> Letters for
> violations of the ruminant feed rules.
>
> I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite a
> few Warning
> Letters have been posted since May; however, I did not find
> any more
> recent than May 7, 2002, regarding "Animal Proteins
> Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Misbranded" (ruminant feed rule violations.)
> You may
> wish to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to
> determine if
> more recent Warning Letters have been issued, but not posted
> on the FDA
> Home Page. Information about filing a FOIA request may be
> found at:
> http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foiahand.html
>
>
> As mentioned on the "CVM and Ruminant Feed (BSE)
> Inspections" site --
>
> "After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that
> was used to
> compile these listings. The Agency started a new database on
> April 15,
> 2002, and future updates on BSE enforcement and inspectional
> findings
> will draw from it. The format of the information presented
> here may
> change, due to design changes of the new database. This site
> will be
> updated after a period of time that allows for transition
> into the new
> database system."
>
> Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated
> than the old
> one, and it does not lend itself to presenting data in a
> simple
> spreadsheet as we did in the past. Please be assured that
> CVM is
> working to solve this problem, and we do plan to post this
> data in the
> future.
>
> I hope that this information is helpful.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Linda A. Grassie
> Public Information Specialist
> FDA/Center for Veterinary Medicine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [ mailto:flounder@wt.net
> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:00 PM
> To: Nbatalle@cvm.fda.gov
> Subject: ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations ???
>
> greetings,
>
> i have noticed that no ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban
> violations have been posted for some time. i have also
> noticed that since about april or may of 2002, the warning
> letters have ceased to be posted publicly, and at the site
> CVM and Ruminant feed inspections site url, they have not
> been updated either.
>
> is this correct or not ?
>
> if not correct, then where are they now being posted ?
>
> outdated data here;
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.ht
> m
>
> tm>
>
> thank you,
> kind regards,
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> ==========================
>
> Greetings BSE-L members,
>
> as you can see above, i got a reply about the
> ruminant-to-ruminant
> ban warning letters that have ceased to be posted publically
> since May. i find a few comments interesting to say the
> least;
>
>
>>I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite
>>a few Warning Letters have been posted since May; however,
>>I did not find any more recent than May 7, 2002, regarding
>>"Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Misbranded"
>>(ruminant feed rule violations.)
>
>
> so did i, this is where i have always searched for them.
> what did i find today;
>
> Darling International, Inc.
> 5/07/02
> Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
> [HTML]
> All American Feed & Tractor
> 4/01/02
> Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
> [HTML]
> Tyson Foods
> 2/12/02
> Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
> [HTML]
> The Feed Bucket
> 12/11/01
> Atlanta District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
> [HTML]
>
> well well, i do not see the "quite a few Warning Letters
> have
> been posted since May" that FDA spoke of. only 4 ???
>
>
>>You may wish to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
>>request to determine if more recent Warning Letters have
>>been issued, but not posted on the FDA Home Page.
>
>
> this is absolutely as i thought. they are _not_ listing
> them for public viewing anymore. i never had to file a
> FOIA for this information before. so, what would you call
> this??? more politics and more BSeee, or just another
> USA cover-up on human/animal TSEs in the USA.
>
> GBR RISK ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALL TSEs...
>
> USA GBR SHOULD BE CHANGED TO GBR III...
>
> TSS
>
>
>>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>
#########
>>Greetings Dr. Gomez and other List members and Lurkers,
>>
>>Gomez, Thomas M. wrote:
>>
>>Subject: Re: Speaking Note on BSE Agriculture Council,
>>Brussels, 2 8
>> November 2002 (compare TSE testing)
>>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:21:41 -0500
>>From: "Gomez, Thomas M."
>>Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE-L
>>
>> > 1. I'm not able to comment on feed ban violations.
>> > Regulatory authority for Substances Prohibited From Use
>>in
>> > Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant
>> > Feed is the FDA, not the USDA.
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>thank you again Dr. Gomez, i did not realize you
>>could not speak about the ruminant-to-ruminant
>>feed ban. odd some FDA lurkers have not replied?
>>maybe Dr. Freas will know, but i don't think the
>>big guns lurk here. like Dr. Detwiler, she has her
>>other people do the dirty work here, replies through
>>them. odd, you replied about 50 State BSE Conference
>>call on Jan. 9, 2001, and that's pretty much all that
>>was about was all the BSE feed ban violations in the USA.
>>no matter, i will ask FDA officials.
>>
>>Subject: USDA/APHIS response to BSE-L--U.S. 50 STATE
>>CONFERENCE CALL Jan. 9, 2001
>>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:04:21 -0500
>>From: "Gomez, Thomas M."
>>Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>
>>USDA/APHIS would like to provide clarification on the
>>following point from Mr. Singeltary's 9 Jan posting
>>regarding the 50 state conference call.
>>[Linda Detwiler asking everyone (me) not to use emergency
>>BSE number, unless last resort. (i thought of calling them
>>today, and reporting the whole damn U.S. cattle herd ;-)
>> 'not']
>>Dr. Detwiler was responding to an announcement made during
>>the call to use the FDA emergency number if anyone wanted
>>to report a cow with signs suspect for BSE. Mr.
>>Singeltary is correct that Dr. Detwiler asked participants
>>to use the FDA emergency number as a last resort to report
>>cattle suspect for BSE. What Mr. Singeltary failed to do
>>was provide the List with Dr. Detwiler's entire statement.
>> Surveillance for BSE in the United States is a
>>cooperative effort between states, producers, private
>>veterinarians, veterinary hospitals and the USDA. The
>>system has been in place for over 10 years. Each state
>>has a system in place wherein cases are reported to either
>>the State Veterinarian, the federal Veterinarian in Charge
>>or through the veterinary diagnostic laboratory system.
>>The states also have provisions with emergency numbers.
>>Dr. Detwiler asked participants to use the systems
>>currently in place to avoid the possibility of a
>>BSE-suspect report falling through the cracks. Use of the
>>FDA emergency number has not been established as a means
>>to report diseased cattle of any nature...
>>snip...
>>
>>FYI see full text with my reply here;
>>
>>http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/8219.html
>>
>>and a better reply than mine would be here;
>>
>> >would you and the USDA/APHIS be so kind as to supply
>> >this list with a full text version of the conference
>> >call and or post on
>> >your web-site?
>>
>> >if not, why not?
>> >
>> >> The system has been in place for over 10 years.
>> >
>> > only test 10,700 cattle from some 1.5 BILLION head
>>(including
>> >calf crop). Especially since French >are testing some
>>20,000 weekly and
>> >the E.U. as a whole,
>>
>>==-=-=
>>
>>Right. The US has 101 million cows where as France has 5.7
>>million. This being 17.7 as many cows, the US would need
>>to test 17.7 x 20,000 = 354,386 cows a week to be testing
>>proportionately. This compares to about 50 cows a week
>>tested now. In other words, the US needs to test 7,000
>>cows where it is now testing 1 to keep up with
>>international norms.
>>Once a country starts serious testing, they get religion.
>>After stomaching some bad results, then they want their
>>trading partners to test just like they did.
>>
>>No one can predict what, if anything, would turn up in the
>>US from a European scale of testing. Right now the US has
>>not been using the international gold standard of the
>>Prionics test.
>>Just as Austria and Belgium have been forced into
>>unwilling testing, the US is going to have to test at an
>>adequate level or forget about foreign trade in bovine
>>byproducts, cosmetics, nutriceuticals, veterinary
>>products, and pharmaceuticals. You can see this just from
>>announcements in Japan.
>>
>>Nobody is going to buy into theoretical reasons why there
>>shouldn't be BSE in the US or Canada when the choice is
>>real-world testing that proved so informative in other
>>theoretical countries such as Germany.
>>In my opinion, the US should have been preparing long ago
>>for a soft landing with the consumer instead of going with
>>the heavy-handed germanic denial system.
>>
>>http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/8222.html
>>
>>i have also sent many letters to FDA with no reply.
>>i have ask all parties that represent this industry
>>to respond to my question, with no luck. so again,
>>i ask all USA Gov. lurkers on this list, including
>>all FDA officials, please answer my question;
>>
>>where are the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations
>>now being documented for public viewing ???
>>
>>for some humorist reading;
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-18.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-20.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-11.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-19.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/100501b.htm
>>
>>http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/21cfr589_01.
>>html
>>snip...
>>
>>As of March 11, CVM had received inspection reports
>>covering inspections (both initial inspections and
>>re-inspections) of 10,458 different firms. The majority of
>>these inspections (around 80%) were conducted by State
>>officials under contract to FDA and the remainder by FDA
>>officials.
>>Various segments of the feed industry had different levels
>>of compliance with this feed ban regulation. The results
>>to date are reported here both by "segment of industry"
>>and "in total".
>>RENDERERS
>>
>>(These firms are the first to handle rendered protein and
>>send materials to feed mills and ruminant feeders.)
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 239
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 171 (72% of those firms
>>inspected/reported).
>> * Of the 171 renderers handling prohibited
>>materials, at their most recent inspection (could have
>>been an initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 4 (2%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 3 (2%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 1 (1%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 4 (2%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>FDA LICENSED FEED MILLS
>>
>>(FDA licenses these mills to produce medicated feed
>>products. This licensing has nothing to do with handling
>>prohibited materials under the feed ban rule: 21 CFR
>>589.2000. A license from FDA is not required to handle
>>materials prohibited under 21 CFR 589.2000.)
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 1,203
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 370 (31% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 370 licensed feed mills handling prohibited
>>materials, at their most recent inspection (could have
>>been an initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 8 (2%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 2 (1%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 3 (1%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 10 (3%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 4,867
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 1,224 (25% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 1,224 feed mills not licensed by FDA
>>handling prohibited materials, at their most recent
>>inspection (could have been an initial or a follow-up
>>inspection):
>> - 55 (4%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 28 (2%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 28 (2%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 86 (7%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
>>
>>(Examples of such firms include: ruminant feeders, on-farm
>>mixers, protein blenders, and distributors.)
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 4,710
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 565 (12% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 565 such firms handling prohibited
>>materials, at their most recent inspection (could have
>>been an initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 17 (3%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 2 (less than 1%) did not have adequate systems
>>to prevent co-mingling
>> - 7 (1%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 25 (4%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>TOTALS (as of March 11, 2002)
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 10,458
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 2,153 (21% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 2,153 firms handling prohibited materials,
>>at their most recent inspection (could have been an
>>initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 77 (4%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 34 (2%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 35 (2%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 113 (5%) firms were found to be out of
>>compliance
>>RE-INSPECTIONS
>>
>>When firms are found to be out of compliance with the feed
>>ban rule, FDA lists them for a re-inspection. As of March
>>11, 2002, reports of 2,185 re-inspections have been
>>submitted to CVM. On re-inspection of these 2,185 firms,
>>32 (1%) were found still to be out of compliance with this
>>rule. Firms previously found to be not in compliance have
>>corrected problems through a variety of ways, including
>>further training of employees about the rule, developing
>>systems to prevent co-mingling, re-labeling their products
>>properly, and adhering to record keeping regulations.
>>Other firms have achieved compliance by eliminating
>>prohibited materials from their operations.
>>DATABASE CHANGE
>>
>>After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that
>>was used to compile these numbers. The Agency is starting
>>a new database on April 15, 2002, and future updates on
>>BSE enforcement will draw from it.
>>snip...
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/2002/May_June.htm#Rumi
>>nant
>>no where did it state that they would cease to publish the
>>ruminant-to-rumiant feed ban violations after the above
>>publication. so, again, where are these now being posted
>>on the web, what URL???
>>
>>let us look at a review of past ruminant BSE feed ban
>>warning letters. these are just the ones i found. most of
>>you have seen them in the past, but it does not hurt to
>>remind us of why they no longer post them to the public.
>>if that is the case?
>>
>>USA 8/4/97 RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN that never was...
>>
>>'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 9/9/02
>>==============================
>>
>>Darling International, Inc.
>>5/07/02
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] All American Feed & Tractor
>>4/01/02
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
>>[HTML] Tyson Foods
>>2/12/02
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] The Feed Bucket
>>12/11/01
>>Atlanta District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] Finlayson Ag Center
>>11/08/01
>>Minneapolis District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
>>[HTML] Dixon Feeds, Inc.
>>10/24/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
>>[HTML] Buckeye Feed Mills, Inc.
>>9/20/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] Wilcox Farms, Inc.
>>9/14/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed [PDF] [HTML]
>>
>>http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/full_text.cfm?
>>full_text=animal+protein&Search=Search
>>now, compare search on 8/8/01...tss
>>===================================
>>
>>'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 8/8/01
>>==============================
>>
>>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:13:43 -0700
>>Reply-To: BSE-L
>>Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE-L
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
>>Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS U.S.A. AUGUST 8,
>>2001
>>DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration
>>
>>Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE
>>Bothell, WA 98021-4421
>>Telephone: 426-486-8788 FAX: 426-483-4996
>>
>>August 8, 2001
>>
>>VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
>>
>>In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 01-75
>>
>>William W. Himmelspach, Owner 22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin,
>>Oregon 97062
>>WARNING LETTER
>>
>>Dear Mr. Himmelspach:
>>
>>An investigation at your animal feed manufacturing
>>operation located at 22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin, Oregon
>>97062, conducted by a Food and Drug Administration
>>investigator on July 12, 2001, found significant
>>deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21,
>>Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal
>>Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation is
>>intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of
>>Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Such deviations
>>cause products being manufactured at this facility to be
>>adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C),
>>and 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
>>(the Act).
>>Our investigation found a failure to separate the receipt,
>>processing, and storage of the product containing
>>prohibited material from non-prohibited material; failure
>>to establish a written system, including clean-out and
>>flushing procedures, to avoid commingling and
>>cross-contamination of common equipment; and failure to
>>maintain records sufficient to track the materials
>>throughout the receipt, processing, and distribution of
>>your products.
>>In addition, our investigation found a failure to label
>>your products with the required cautionary, statement "Do
>>Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants," Your pig feeds,
>>containing prohibited materials, were not labeled with the
>>cautionary statement, and you reuse poly-tote bags for
>>ruminant feed and pig feed, where the bags could become
>>contaminated with prohibited material. The FDA suggests
>>the statement be distinguished by different type size or
>>color or other means of highlighting the statement so that
>>it is easily noticed by a purchaser.
>>The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of
>>deviations from the regulations. As a manufacturer of
>>materials intended for animal feed use, you are
>>responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
>>the products you manufacture and distribute are in
>>compliance with
>>William W. Himmelspach Tualatin, Oregon Re: Warning Letter
>>SEA 01-75 Page 2
>>your overall operation and the products you manufacture
>>and distribute are in compliance with the law. We have
>>enclosed a copy of the FDA's Small Entity Compliance Guide
>>to assist you with complying with the regulation.
>>
>>You should take prompt action to correct these violations,
>>and you should establish a system whereby such violations
>>do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations
>>may result in regulatory action without further notice,
>>such as seizure and/or injunction.
>>You should notify this office in writing within 15 working
>>days of receipt of this letter, of the steps you have
>>taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law.
>>Your response should include an explanation of each step
>>being taken to correct the violations, and prevent their
>>recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed in 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 that
>>corrections have been made.
>>Your reply should be directed to the Food and Drug
>>Administration, Attention: Bruce Williamson, Compliance
>>Officer. If you have any questions please contact Mr.
>>Williamson at (425) 483-4976.
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Charles M. Breen District Director
>>
>>Enclosure; Form FDA 483 Small Entity Compliance Guide
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1619d.pdf
>>
>>Warning Letters Index - Search Form Results Company Name
>>Date Issued Issuing Office
>>
>>Subject
>>
>>File Adrian Elevator, Inc. 5/03/01 Minneapolis District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Alaska Garden and Pet Supply, Inc. 4/27/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Bryan Enterprises 2/20/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Feed Mill/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed/Adulterated
>>View File Carrollton Farmers Exchange 7/12/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc 3/23/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc. 5/23/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Central Ohio Farmers Cooperative, Inc. 5/24/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Protein Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Champaign Landmark, Inc. 3/05/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed/Misbranded
>>View File Countryline Co-Op, Inc. 5/14/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Dorset Milling 4/16/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Earl B. Olson Feed Mill 4/23/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Faler Feed Store, Inc. 3/21/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Farmers Mill & Elevator Company 3/30/01 Atlanta
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Farnam Companies, Inc. 7/20/01 Kansas City
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed/Adulterated
>>View File Greeley Elevator Company 4/04/01 Denver District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Hartville Elevator Company, Inc. 2/22/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Feed Mill/Animal Proteins
>>Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated
>>View File Himmelspach, William W. 8/08/01 Seattle District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Integral Fish Foods, Inc. 6/12/01 Denver
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Jefferson Milling Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Lime Creek Ag Services, Inc. 4/25/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Material Resources LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Material Resources, LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District
>>Office Animal Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Medina Landmark, Inc. 3/23/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Minister Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc.
>>4/10/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins
>>Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Feed Mill
>>View File Peco Foods, Inc. 2/23/01 New Orleans District
>>Office CGMP Requirements for Medicated Feeds/Animal
>>Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>View File Perry Coal and Feed Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Rietdyk's Milling Company 3/05/01 Seattle
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File River Valley Co-Op 3/22/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibeted in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File River Valley Co-Op 5/22/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Round Lake Farmers Coop. 5/30/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Rudy, Inc. 3/22/01 Cincinnati District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Rudy, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Sandy Lake Mills 4/09/01 Philadelphia District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Shields Feed and Supply Company 3/07/01 New
>>Orleans District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Stewart's Farm Supply 3/21/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Superior Feeds 6/06/01 Seattle District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File The Scoular Company 5/30/01 Minneapolis District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File University of Minnesota 5/10/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Valley Feed Mill, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Western Reserve Farm Cooperative 3/21/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Protein Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Yachere Feed, Inc. 4/09/01 Philadelphia District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Z & W Mill, Inc. 3/27/01 Denver District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File
>>
>>http://63.75.126.221/scripts/wlcfm/resultswl.cfm
>>
>>(TYPE IN 'ANIMAL PROTEIN')
>>
>>we must not forget the ANIMAL PROTEIN FED TO DEER/ELK.
>>those warning letters were stopped long ago;
>>
>>Subject: MAD DEER/ELK DISEASE AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
>>Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:41:46 -0700
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
>>Reply-To: BSE-L
>>To: BSE-L
>>
>>8420-20.5% Antler Developer
>>For Deer and Game in the wild
>>Guaranteed Analysis Ingredients / Products Feeding
>>Directions
>>snip...
>>
>>_animal protein_
>>
>>http://www.surefed.com/deer.htm
>>
>>BODE'S GAME FEED SUPPLEMENT #400
>>A RATION FOR DEER
>>NET WEIGHT 50 POUNDS
>>22.6 KG.
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>_animal protein_
>>
>>http://www.bodefeed.com/prod7.htm
>>
>>Ingredients
>>
>>Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain
>>By-Products, Forage Products, Roughage Products 15%,
>>Molasses Products, __Animal Protein Products__,
>>snip...
>>
>>http://www.bodefeed.com/prod6.htm
>>===================================
>>
>>MORE ANIMAL PROTEIN PRODUCTS FOR DEER
>>
>>Bode's #1 Game Pellets
>>A RATION FOR DEER
>>F3153
>>
>>GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
>>Crude Protein (Min) 16%
>>Crude Fat (Min) 2.0%
>>snip...
>>
>>Ingredients
>>
>>Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain
>>By-Products, Forage Products, Roughage Products, 15%
>>Molasses Products, __Animal Protein Products__,
>>Monocalcium Phosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Salt,
>>snip...
>>
>>FEEDING DIRECTIONS
>>Feed as Creep Feed with Normal Diet
>>
>>http://www.bodefeed.com/prod8.htm
>>
>>INGREDIENTS
>>
>>Grain Products, Roughage Products (not more than 35%),
>>Processed Grain By-Products, Plant Protein Products,
>>Forage Products, __Animal Protein Products__,
>>L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Monocalcium/Dicalcium
>>snip...
>>
>>DIRECTIONS FOR USE
>>
>>Deer Builder Pellets is designed to be fed to deer under
>>range conditions or deer that require higher levels of
>>protein. Feed to deer during gestation, fawning,
>>lactation, antler growth and pre-rut, all phases which
>>require a higher level of nutrition. Provide adequate
>>amounts of good quality roughage and fresh water at all
>>times.
>>http://www.profilenutrition.com/Pro...er_pellets.html
>>
>>DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
>>PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
>>FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
>>
>>April 9, 2001 WARNING LETTER
>>
>>01-PHI-12
>>CERTIFIED MAIL
>>RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
>>
>>Brian J. Raymond, Owner
>>Sandy Lake Mills
>>26 Mill Street
>>P.O. Box 117
>>Sandy Lake, PA 16145
>>PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT
>>
>>Tel: 215-597-4390
>>
>>Dear Mr. Raymond:
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration Investigator Gregory E.
>>Beichner conducted an inspection of your animal feed
>>manufacturing operation, located in Sandy Lake,
>>Pennsylvania, on March 23, 2001, and determined that your
>>firm manufactures animal feeds including feeds containing
>>prohibited materials. The inspection found significant
>>deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21,
>>code of Federal Regulations, part 589.2000 - Animal
>>Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation is
>>intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of
>>Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) . Such deviations
>>cause products being manufactured at this facility to be
>>misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(f), of the
>>Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
>>Our investigation found failure to label your swine feed
>>with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to
>>cattle or other Ruminants" The FDA suggests that the
>>statement be distinguished by different type-size or color
>>or other means of highlighting the statement so that it is
>>easily noticed by a purchaser.
>>In addition, we note that you are using approximately 140
>>pounds of cracked corn to flush your mixer used in the
>>manufacture of animal feeds containing prohibited
>>material. This flushed material is fed to wild game
>>including deer, a ruminant animal. Feed material which may
>>potentially contain prohibited material should not be fed
>>to ruminant animals which may become part of the food
>>chain.
>>The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of
>>deviations from the regulations. As a manufacturer of
>>materials intended for animal feed use, you are
>>responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
>>the products you manufacture and distribute are in
>>compliance with the law. We have enclosed a copy of FDA's
>>Small Entity Compliance Guide to assist you with complying
>>with the regulation... blah, blah, blah...
>>http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1115d.pdf
>>===================================================
>
>
> SNIP...
>
> TSS
>
> ########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:56:07 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
References:
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Greetings and Happy Holidays,
hi Linda,
many thanks for this reply, was just checking in to see
if anything new had happened since our last correspondence.
i thought i had missed something?
> Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than
> the old one, and it does not lend itself to presenting data in
> a simple spreadsheet as we did in the past.
how convenient;-) i had no problems with the old one...
> Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this problem,
> and we do plan to post this data in the future.
thank you, if USDA/APHIS are lucky, i will hold my breath until
that time;-)
nothing personal Linda, take care, and may the New Year bring
PEACE...
TSS
CVM HomePage wrote:
> Dear Mr. Singeltary:
>
> As mentioned in my e-mail of December 4, FDA's Center for Veterinary
> Medicine never posted the Warning Letters for ruminant feed violations on
> our "BSE" page -- http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bse/bsetoc.html. However,
> these Warning Letters have been included on the FDA "Warning Letters" page
> -- http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm that is located on the FDA's
> "Electronic Freedom of Information Reading Room" page. But, not as a
> separate category of Warning Letters for violations of the ruminant feed
> rules.
>
> I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite a few Warning
> Letters have been posted since May; however, I did not find any more recent
> than May 7, 2002, regarding "Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
> Feed/Misbranded" (ruminant feed rule violations.) You may wish to file a
> Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to determine if more recent
> Warning Letters have been issued, but not posted on the FDA Home Page.
> Information about filing a FOIA request may be found at:
> http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foiahand.html
>
> As mentioned on the "CVM and Ruminant Feed (BSE) Inspections" site --
>
> "After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that was used to
> compile these listings. The Agency started a new database on April 15, 2002,
> and future updates on BSE enforcement and inspectional findings will draw
> from it. The format of the information presented here may change, due to
> design changes of the new database. This site will be updated after a period
> of time that allows for transition into the new database system."
>
> Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated than the old one,
> and it does not lend itself to presenting data in a simple spreadsheet as we
> did in the past. Please be assured that CVM is working to solve this
> problem, and we do plan to post this data in the future.
>
> We have nothing new to report at this time.
>
> I hope that this information is helpful.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Linda A. Grassie for the FDA Home Page
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:flounder@wt.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:03 PM
> To: CVMHomeP@cvm.fda.gov
> Subject: USA ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban warning letters ???
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> i have noticed the inspections and warning letters
> from firms not complying with the ruminant-to-ruminant
> feed ban violations has not been updated since (March 11, 2002)?
>
> 2) Firms Currently Considered as Not in Compliance with the BSE Feed Rule
>
> The following spreadsheet is a subset of Spreadsheet 1 and contains the
> name, address, and firm identifier of all firms that were considered as
> not being in compliance with the BSE feed regulation at their most
> recent inspection, according to the BSE inspection database. Compliance
> status was determined by examination of the BSE Inspection Checklist.
> The dates of the inspections and the specific BSE provision violations
> for each inspection are also included. The listing is organized
> alphabetically first by the FDA District and then by the state in which
> the inspected facility is located.
>
> Most Recent BSE Inspections, Firms Not in Compliance
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.htm
>
> i would be interested to know if all firms are now complying and that no
> warning letters have been issued since may of 2002, or have they just not
> been posted?
>
> if so, how can i locate them?
>
> thank you,
> kind regards,
> terry
>
>
########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
Subject: Re: re-USA BSE/TSE RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN VIOLATIONS ''cover-up''
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:28:24 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
References: <3dee84d2.705.1804289383@wt.net>
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Greetings List Members,
for those that were interested, it seems they have taken
the 'animal protein' search title and only listed
4 with that search title. this is the same search title
i have used since searching ruminant-to-ruminant feed
ban warning letters for the last 5 years. it seems they
have archived all of them and they are now not listed
in search, unless you go back to archive, except for these
four. i knew they had to be somewhere, but still is
odd we now have to file FOIA to see what we were able
to see for the last five years every Tues.? i had read
a while back Senator Kennedy was very worried due to the
fact that the new administration had decided to cease
posted many of these warning letters, or just to stop issuing
them all together? at any rate, it does seem that they have
ceased to document them since may 2002, if they are continuing
to even issue them at all? or maybe we could be lucky enough
as to have not had any violations since may;-) i guess if i
want to find out, i must file FOIA, and by the time they
send me that data, they will probably post on WWW???
round and round we go, when we stop, nobody knows;
> Again, I am not involved in posting warning letters
> on that page, so I cannot answer your question on where
> newer letters on ruminant feed violations are being posted.
> In fact, I do not know if FDA has issued any Warning Letters
> on this subject since last May. You will need to file a FOIA
> request for that information.
for anyone interested, here are the urls for archive,
i did not look under 'M' medicated feeds, i remember
some time ago some BSE warning letters were for medicated
feeds as well.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=A
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject_archive.cfm?FL=A
TSS
flounder wrote:
> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations ???
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:49:19 -0500
> From: "Grassie, Linda A"
> To: "'flounder@wt.net'"
> CC: "Bataller, Neal"
>
> Dear Mr. Singeltary:
>
> Your request for information on violations of FDA's ruminant
> feed rule
> has been forwarded to me for reply.
>
> We (FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine) never posted the
> Warning
> Letters for ruminant feed violations on our "BSE" page --
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/bse/bsetoc.html. However,
> these Warning
> Letters have been included on the FDA "Warning Letters" page
> --
>
> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm
> that is located on the FDA's "Electronic Freedom of
> Information Reading
> Room" page. But, not as a separate category of Warning
> Letters for
> violations of the ruminant feed rules.
>
> I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite a
> few Warning
> Letters have been posted since May; however, I did not find
> any more
> recent than May 7, 2002, regarding "Animal Proteins
> Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Misbranded" (ruminant feed rule violations.)
> You may
> wish to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to
> determine if
> more recent Warning Letters have been issued, but not posted
> on the FDA
> Home Page. Information about filing a FOIA request may be
> found at:
> http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foiahand.html
>
>
> As mentioned on the "CVM and Ruminant Feed (BSE)
> Inspections" site --
>
> "After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that
> was used to
> compile these listings. The Agency started a new database on
> April 15,
> 2002, and future updates on BSE enforcement and inspectional
> findings
> will draw from it. The format of the information presented
> here may
> change, due to design changes of the new database. This site
> will be
> updated after a period of time that allows for transition
> into the new
> database system."
>
> Unfortunately, the new database is much more complicated
> than the old
> one, and it does not lend itself to presenting data in a
> simple
> spreadsheet as we did in the past. Please be assured that
> CVM is
> working to solve this problem, and we do plan to post this
> data in the
> future.
>
> I hope that this information is helpful.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Linda A. Grassie
> Public Information Specialist
> FDA/Center for Veterinary Medicine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [ mailto:flounder@wt.net
> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:00 PM
> To: Nbatalle@cvm.fda.gov
> Subject: ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations ???
>
> greetings,
>
> i have noticed that no ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban
> violations have been posted for some time. i have also
> noticed that since about april or may of 2002, the warning
> letters have ceased to be posted publicly, and at the site
> CVM and Ruminant feed inspections site url, they have not
> been updated either.
>
> is this correct or not ?
>
> if not correct, then where are they now being posted ?
>
> outdated data here;
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/InpectionListDescriptionforHP.ht
> m
>
> tm>
>
> thank you,
> kind regards,
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> ==========================
>
> Greetings BSE-L members,
>
> as you can see above, i got a reply about the
> ruminant-to-ruminant
> ban warning letters that have ceased to be posted publically
> since May. i find a few comments interesting to say the
> least;
>
>
>>I checked the Warning Letter page, and found that quite
>>a few Warning Letters have been posted since May; however,
>>I did not find any more recent than May 7, 2002, regarding
>>"Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Misbranded"
>>(ruminant feed rule violations.)
>
>
> so did i, this is where i have always searched for them.
> what did i find today;
>
> Darling International, Inc.
> 5/07/02
> Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
> [HTML]
> All American Feed & Tractor
> 4/01/02
> Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
> [HTML]
> Tyson Foods
> 2/12/02
> Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
> [HTML]
> The Feed Bucket
> 12/11/01
> Atlanta District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
> Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
> [HTML]
>
> well well, i do not see the "quite a few Warning Letters
> have
> been posted since May" that FDA spoke of. only 4 ???
>
>
>>You may wish to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
>>request to determine if more recent Warning Letters have
>>been issued, but not posted on the FDA Home Page.
>
>
> this is absolutely as i thought. they are _not_ listing
> them for public viewing anymore. i never had to file a
> FOIA for this information before. so, what would you call
> this??? more politics and more BSeee, or just another
> USA cover-up on human/animal TSEs in the USA.
>
> GBR RISK ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALL TSEs...
>
> USA GBR SHOULD BE CHANGED TO GBR III...
>
> TSS
>
>
>>######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>
>>Greetings Dr. Gomez and other List members and Lurkers,
>>
>>Gomez, Thomas M. wrote:
>>
>>Subject: Re: Speaking Note on BSE Agriculture Council,
>>Brussels, 2 8
>> November 2002 (compare TSE testing)
>>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:21:41 -0500
>>From: "Gomez, Thomas M."
>>Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE-L
>>
>> > 1. I'm not able to comment on feed ban violations.
>> > Regulatory authority for Substances Prohibited From Use
>>in
>> > Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant
>> > Feed is the FDA, not the USDA.
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>thank you again Dr. Gomez, i did not realize you
>>could not speak about the ruminant-to-ruminant
>>feed ban. odd some FDA lurkers have not replied?
>>maybe Dr. Freas will know, but i don't think the
>>big guns lurk here. like Dr. Detwiler, she has her
>>other people do the dirty work here, replies through
>>them. odd, you replied about 50 State BSE Conference
>>call on Jan. 9, 2001, and that's pretty much all that
>>was about was all the BSE feed ban violations in the USA.
>>no matter, i will ask FDA officials.
>>
>>Subject: USDA/APHIS response to BSE-L--U.S. 50 STATE
>>CONFERENCE CALL Jan. 9, 2001
>>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:04:21 -0500
>>From: "Gomez, Thomas M."
>>Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>>
>>USDA/APHIS would like to provide clarification on the
>>following point from Mr. Singeltary's 9 Jan posting
>>regarding the 50 state conference call.
>>[Linda Detwiler asking everyone (me) not to use emergency
>>BSE number, unless last resort. (i thought of calling them
>>today, and reporting the whole damn U.S. cattle herd ;-)
>> 'not']
>>Dr. Detwiler was responding to an announcement made during
>>the call to use the FDA emergency number if anyone wanted
>>to report a cow with signs suspect for BSE. Mr.
>>Singeltary is correct that Dr. Detwiler asked participants
>>to use the FDA emergency number as a last resort to report
>>cattle suspect for BSE. What Mr. Singeltary failed to do
>>was provide the List with Dr. Detwiler's entire statement.
>> Surveillance for BSE in the United States is a
>>cooperative effort between states, producers, private
>>veterinarians, veterinary hospitals and the USDA. The
>>system has been in place for over 10 years. Each state
>>has a system in place wherein cases are reported to either
>>the State Veterinarian, the federal Veterinarian in Charge
>>or through the veterinary diagnostic laboratory system.
>>The states also have provisions with emergency numbers.
>>Dr. Detwiler asked participants to use the systems
>>currently in place to avoid the possibility of a
>>BSE-suspect report falling through the cracks. Use of the
>>FDA emergency number has not been established as a means
>>to report diseased cattle of any nature...
>>snip...
>>
>>FYI see full text with my reply here;
>>
>>http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/8219.html
>>
>>and a better reply than mine would be here;
>>
>> >would you and the USDA/APHIS be so kind as to supply
>> >this list with a full text version of the conference
>> >call and or post on
>> >your web-site?
>>
>> >if not, why not?
>> >
>> >> The system has been in place for over 10 years.
>> >
>> > only test 10,700 cattle from some 1.5 BILLION head
>>(including
>> >calf crop). Especially since French >are testing some
>>20,000 weekly and
>> >the E.U. as a whole,
>>
>>==-=-=
>>
>>Right. The US has 101 million cows where as France has 5.7
>>million. This being 17.7 as many cows, the US would need
>>to test 17.7 x 20,000 = 354,386 cows a week to be testing
>>proportionately. This compares to about 50 cows a week
>>tested now. In other words, the US needs to test 7,000
>>cows where it is now testing 1 to keep up with
>>international norms.
>>Once a country starts serious testing, they get religion.
>>After stomaching some bad results, then they want their
>>trading partners to test just like they did.
>>
>>No one can predict what, if anything, would turn up in the
>>US from a European scale of testing. Right now the US has
>>not been using the international gold standard of the
>>Prionics test.
>>Just as Austria and Belgium have been forced into
>>unwilling testing, the US is going to have to test at an
>>adequate level or forget about foreign trade in bovine
>>byproducts, cosmetics, nutriceuticals, veterinary
>>products, and pharmaceuticals. You can see this just from
>>announcements in Japan.
>>
>>Nobody is going to buy into theoretical reasons why there
>>shouldn't be BSE in the US or Canada when the choice is
>>real-world testing that proved so informative in other
>>theoretical countries such as Germany.
>>In my opinion, the US should have been preparing long ago
>>for a soft landing with the consumer instead of going with
>>the heavy-handed germanic denial system.
>>
>>http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/8222.html
>>
>>i have also sent many letters to FDA with no reply.
>>i have ask all parties that represent this industry
>>to respond to my question, with no luck. so again,
>>i ask all USA Gov. lurkers on this list, including
>>all FDA officials, please answer my question;
>>
>>where are the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban violations
>>now being documented for public viewing ???
>>
>>for some humorist reading;
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-18.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-20.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-11.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/112901/01
>>N-0423-EC-19.html
>>http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/100501b.htm
>>
>>http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/21cfr589_01.
>>html
>>snip...
>>
>>As of March 11, CVM had received inspection reports
>>covering inspections (both initial inspections and
>>re-inspections) of 10,458 different firms. The majority of
>>these inspections (around 80%) were conducted by State
>>officials under contract to FDA and the remainder by FDA
>>officials.
>>Various segments of the feed industry had different levels
>>of compliance with this feed ban regulation. The results
>>to date are reported here both by "segment of industry"
>>and "in total".
>>RENDERERS
>>
>>(These firms are the first to handle rendered protein and
>>send materials to feed mills and ruminant feeders.)
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 239
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 171 (72% of those firms
>>inspected/reported).
>> * Of the 171 renderers handling prohibited
>>materials, at their most recent inspection (could have
>>been an initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 4 (2%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 3 (2%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 1 (1%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 4 (2%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>FDA LICENSED FEED MILLS
>>
>>(FDA licenses these mills to produce medicated feed
>>products. This licensing has nothing to do with handling
>>prohibited materials under the feed ban rule: 21 CFR
>>589.2000. A license from FDA is not required to handle
>>materials prohibited under 21 CFR 589.2000.)
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 1,203
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 370 (31% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 370 licensed feed mills handling prohibited
>>materials, at their most recent inspection (could have
>>been an initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 8 (2%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 2 (1%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 3 (1%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 10 (3%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>FEED MILLS NOT LICENSED BY FDA
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 4,867
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 1,224 (25% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 1,224 feed mills not licensed by FDA
>>handling prohibited materials, at their most recent
>>inspection (could have been an initial or a follow-up
>>inspection):
>> - 55 (4%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 28 (2%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 28 (2%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 86 (7%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>OTHER FIRMS INSPECTED
>>
>>(Examples of such firms include: ruminant feeders, on-farm
>>mixers, protein blenders, and distributors.)
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 4,710
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 565 (12% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 565 such firms handling prohibited
>>materials, at their most recent inspection (could have
>>been an initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 17 (3%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 2 (less than 1%) did not have adequate systems
>>to prevent co-mingling
>> - 7 (1%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 25 (4%) firms were found to be out of compliance
>>(some firms were out of compliance with more than one
>>aspect of the rule)
>>TOTALS (as of March 11, 2002)
>>
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS WHOSE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
>>REPORTED TO CVM - 10,458
>> *
>>
>> NUMBER OF FIRMS HANDLING MATERIALS PROHIBITED FOR
>>USE IN RUMINANT FEED - 2,153 (21% of those firms
>>inspected/reported)
>> * Of the 2,153 firms handling prohibited materials,
>>at their most recent inspection (could have been an
>>initial or a follow-up inspection):
>> - 77 (4%) had products that were not labeled as
>>required
>> - 34 (2%) did not have adequate systems to prevent
>>co-mingling
>> - 35 (2%) did not adequately follow record keeping
>>regulations
>> - 113 (5%) firms were found to be out of
>>compliance
>>RE-INSPECTIONS
>>
>>When firms are found to be out of compliance with the feed
>>ban rule, FDA lists them for a re-inspection. As of March
>>11, 2002, reports of 2,185 re-inspections have been
>>submitted to CVM. On re-inspection of these 2,185 firms,
>>32 (1%) were found still to be out of compliance with this
>>rule. Firms previously found to be not in compliance have
>>corrected problems through a variety of ways, including
>>further training of employees about the rule, developing
>>systems to prevent co-mingling, re-labeling their products
>>properly, and adhering to record keeping regulations.
>>Other firms have achieved compliance by eliminating
>>prohibited materials from their operations.
>>DATABASE CHANGE
>>
>>After March 11, 2002, FDA discontinued the database that
>>was used to compile these numbers. The Agency is starting
>>a new database on April 15, 2002, and future updates on
>>BSE enforcement will draw from it.
>>snip...
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/2002/May_June.htm#Rumi
>>nant
>>no where did it state that they would cease to publish the
>>ruminant-to-rumiant feed ban violations after the above
>>publication. so, again, where are these now being posted
>>on the web, what URL???
>>
>>let us look at a review of past ruminant BSE feed ban
>>warning letters. these are just the ones i found. most of
>>you have seen them in the past, but it does not hurt to
>>remind us of why they no longer post them to the public.
>>if that is the case?
>>
>>USA 8/4/97 RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEED BAN that never was...
>>
>>'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 9/9/02
>>==============================
>>
>>Darling International, Inc.
>>5/07/02
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] All American Feed & Tractor
>>4/01/02
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
>>[HTML] Tyson Foods
>>2/12/02
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] The Feed Bucket
>>12/11/01
>>Atlanta District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] Finlayson Ag Center
>>11/08/01
>>Minneapolis District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
>>[HTML] Dixon Feeds, Inc.
>>10/24/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated [PDF]
>>[HTML] Buckeye Feed Mills, Inc.
>>9/20/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed/Adulterated/Misbranded [PDF]
>>[HTML] Wilcox Farms, Inc.
>>9/14/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed [PDF] [HTML]
>>
>>http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/full_text.cfm?
>>full_text=animal+protein&Search=Search
>>now, compare search on 8/8/01...tss
>>===================================
>>
>>'ANIMAL PROTEIN' SEARCH 8/8/01
>>==============================
>>
>>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:13:43 -0700
>>Reply-To: BSE-L
>>Sender: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE-L
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
>>Subject: MAD COW FEED BAN WARNING LETTERS U.S.A. AUGUST 8,
>>2001
>>DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration
>>
>>Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE
>>Bothell, WA 98021-4421
>>Telephone: 426-486-8788 FAX: 426-483-4996
>>
>>August 8, 2001
>>
>>VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
>>
>>In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 01-75
>>
>>William W. Himmelspach, Owner 22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin,
>>Oregon 97062
>>WARNING LETTER
>>
>>Dear Mr. Himmelspach:
>>
>>An investigation at your animal feed manufacturing
>>operation located at 22195 S.W. 78th Tualatin, Oregon
>>97062, conducted by a Food and Drug Administration
>>investigator on July 12, 2001, found significant
>>deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21,
>>Code of Federal Regulations, Part 589.2000 - Animal
>>Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation is
>>intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of
>>Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Such deviations
>>cause products being manufactured at this facility to be
>>adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(2)(C),
>>and 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
>>(the Act).
>>Our investigation found a failure to separate the receipt,
>>processing, and storage of the product containing
>>prohibited material from non-prohibited material; failure
>>to establish a written system, including clean-out and
>>flushing procedures, to avoid commingling and
>>cross-contamination of common equipment; and failure to
>>maintain records sufficient to track the materials
>>throughout the receipt, processing, and distribution of
>>your products.
>>In addition, our investigation found a failure to label
>>your products with the required cautionary, statement "Do
>>Not Feed to Cattle or Other Ruminants," Your pig feeds,
>>containing prohibited materials, were not labeled with the
>>cautionary statement, and you reuse poly-tote bags for
>>ruminant feed and pig feed, where the bags could become
>>contaminated with prohibited material. The FDA suggests
>>the statement be distinguished by different type size or
>>color or other means of highlighting the statement so that
>>it is easily noticed by a purchaser.
>>The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of
>>deviations from the regulations. As a manufacturer of
>>materials intended for animal feed use, you are
>>responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
>>the products you manufacture and distribute are in
>>compliance with
>>William W. Himmelspach Tualatin, Oregon Re: Warning Letter
>>SEA 01-75 Page 2
>>your overall operation and the products you manufacture
>>and distribute are in compliance with the law. We have
>>enclosed a copy of the FDA's Small Entity Compliance Guide
>>to assist you with complying with the regulation.
>>
>>You should take prompt action to correct these violations,
>>and you should establish a system whereby such violations
>>do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations
>>may result in regulatory action without further notice,
>>such as seizure and/or injunction.
>>You should notify this office in writing within 15 working
>>days of receipt of this letter, of the steps you have
>>taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law.
>>Your response should include an explanation of each step
>>being taken to correct the violations, and prevent their
>>recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed in 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 that
>>corrections have been made.
>>Your reply should be directed to the Food and Drug
>>Administration, Attention: Bruce Williamson, Compliance
>>Officer. If you have any questions please contact Mr.
>>Williamson at (425) 483-4976.
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Charles M. Breen District Director
>>
>>Enclosure; Form FDA 483 Small Entity Compliance Guide
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1619d.pdf
>>
>>Warning Letters Index - Search Form Results Company Name
>>Date Issued Issuing Office
>>
>>Subject
>>
>>File Adrian Elevator, Inc. 5/03/01 Minneapolis District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Alaska Garden and Pet Supply, Inc. 4/27/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Bryan Enterprises 2/20/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Feed Mill/Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed/Adulterated
>>View File Carrollton Farmers Exchange 7/12/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc 3/23/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Centerburg Mill and General Store, Inc. 5/23/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Central Ohio Farmers Cooperative, Inc. 5/24/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Protein Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Champaign Landmark, Inc. 3/05/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed/Misbranded
>>View File Countryline Co-Op, Inc. 5/14/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Dorset Milling 4/16/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Earl B. Olson Feed Mill 4/23/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Faler Feed Store, Inc. 3/21/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Farmers Mill & Elevator Company 3/30/01 Atlanta
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Farnam Companies, Inc. 7/20/01 Kansas City
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed/Adulterated
>>View File Greeley Elevator Company 4/04/01 Denver District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Hartville Elevator Company, Inc. 2/22/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Feed Mill/Animal Proteins
>>Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Adulterated
>>View File Himmelspach, William W. 8/08/01 Seattle District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Integral Fish Foods, Inc. 6/12/01 Denver
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Jefferson Milling Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Lime Creek Ag Services, Inc. 4/25/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Material Resources LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Material Resources, LLC 5/04/01 Chicago District
>>Office Animal Protein Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Medina Landmark, Inc. 3/23/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Minister Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc.
>>4/10/01 Cincinnati District Office Animal Proteins
>>Prohibited in Ruminant Feed/Feed Mill
>>View File Peco Foods, Inc. 2/23/01 New Orleans District
>>Office CGMP Requirements for Medicated Feeds/Animal
>>Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>View File Perry Coal and Feed Company 4/16/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Rietdyk's Milling Company 3/05/01 Seattle
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File River Valley Co-Op 3/22/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibeted in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File River Valley Co-Op 5/22/01 Cincinnati District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Round Lake Farmers Coop. 5/30/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Rudy, Inc. 3/22/01 Cincinnati District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Rudy, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Sandy Lake Mills 4/09/01 Philadelphia District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Shields Feed and Supply Company 3/07/01 New
>>Orleans District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Stewart's Farm Supply 3/21/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Superior Feeds 6/06/01 Seattle District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File The Scoular Company 5/30/01 Minneapolis District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File University of Minnesota 5/10/01 Minneapolis
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Valley Feed Mill, Inc. 5/22/01 Cincinnati
>>District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
>>Feed
>>View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Wallowa County Grain Growers, Inc. 5/17/01
>>Seattle District Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Western Reserve Farm Cooperative 3/21/01
>>Cincinnati District Office Animal Protein Prohibited in
>>Ruminant Feed
>>View File Yachere Feed, Inc. 4/09/01 Philadelphia District
>>Office Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File Z & W Mill, Inc. 3/27/01 Denver District Office
>>Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
>>
>>View File
>>
>>http://63.75.126.221/scripts/wlcfm/resultswl.cfm
>>
>>(TYPE IN 'ANIMAL PROTEIN')
>>
>>we must not forget the ANIMAL PROTEIN FED TO DEER/ELK.
>>those warning letters were stopped long ago;
>>
>>Subject: MAD DEER/ELK DISEASE AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
>>Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:41:46 -0700
>>From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
>>Reply-To: BSE-L
>>To: BSE-L
>>
>>8420-20.5% Antler Developer
>>For Deer and Game in the wild
>>Guaranteed Analysis Ingredients / Products Feeding
>>Directions
>>snip...
>>
>>_animal protein_
>>
>>http://www.surefed.com/deer.htm
>>
>>BODE'S GAME FEED SUPPLEMENT #400
>>A RATION FOR DEER
>>NET WEIGHT 50 POUNDS
>>22.6 KG.
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>_animal protein_
>>
>>http://www.bodefeed.com/prod7.htm
>>
>>Ingredients
>>
>>Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain
>>By-Products, Forage Products, Roughage Products 15%,
>>Molasses Products, __Animal Protein Products__,
>>snip...
>>
>>http://www.bodefeed.com/prod6.htm
>>===================================
>>
>>MORE ANIMAL PROTEIN PRODUCTS FOR DEER
>>
>>Bode's #1 Game Pellets
>>A RATION FOR DEER
>>F3153
>>
>>GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
>>Crude Protein (Min) 16%
>>Crude Fat (Min) 2.0%
>>snip...
>>
>>Ingredients
>>
>>Grain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain
>>By-Products, Forage Products, Roughage Products, 15%
>>Molasses Products, __Animal Protein Products__,
>>Monocalcium Phosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Salt,
>>snip...
>>
>>FEEDING DIRECTIONS
>>Feed as Creep Feed with Normal Diet
>>
>>http://www.bodefeed.com/prod8.htm
>>
>>INGREDIENTS
>>
>>Grain Products, Roughage Products (not more than 35%),
>>Processed Grain By-Products, Plant Protein Products,
>>Forage Products, __Animal Protein Products__,
>>L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Monocalcium/Dicalcium
>>snip...
>>
>>DIRECTIONS FOR USE
>>
>>Deer Builder Pellets is designed to be fed to deer under
>>range conditions or deer that require higher levels of
>>protein. Feed to deer during gestation, fawning,
>>lactation, antler growth and pre-rut, all phases which
>>require a higher level of nutrition. Provide adequate
>>amounts of good quality roughage and fresh water at all
>>times.
>>http://www.profilenutrition.com/Pro...er_pellets.html
>>
>>DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
>>PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
>>FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
>>
>>April 9, 2001 WARNING LETTER
>>
>>01-PHI-12
>>CERTIFIED MAIL
>>RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
>>
>>Brian J. Raymond, Owner
>>Sandy Lake Mills
>>26 Mill Street
>>P.O. Box 117
>>Sandy Lake, PA 16145
>>PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT
>>
>>Tel: 215-597-4390
>>
>>Dear Mr. Raymond:
>>
>>Food and Drug Administration Investigator Gregory E.
>>Beichner conducted an inspection of your animal feed
>>manufacturing operation, located in Sandy Lake,
>>Pennsylvania, on March 23, 2001, and determined that your
>>firm manufactures animal feeds including feeds containing
>>prohibited materials. The inspection found significant
>>deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21,
>>code of Federal Regulations, part 589.2000 - Animal
>>Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation is
>>intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of
>>Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) . Such deviations
>>cause products being manufactured at this facility to be
>>misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(f), of the
>>Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).
>>Our investigation found failure to label your swine feed
>>with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to
>>cattle or other Ruminants" The FDA suggests that the
>>statement be distinguished by different type-size or color
>>or other means of highlighting the statement so that it is
>>easily noticed by a purchaser.
>>In addition, we note that you are using approximately 140
>>pounds of cracked corn to flush your mixer used in the
>>manufacture of animal feeds containing prohibited
>>material. This flushed material is fed to wild game
>>including deer, a ruminant animal. Feed material which may
>>potentially contain prohibited material should not be fed
>>to ruminant animals which may become part of the food
>>chain.
>>The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of
>>deviations from the regulations. As a manufacturer of
>>materials intended for animal feed use, you are
>>responsible for assuring that your overall operation and
>>the products you manufacture and distribute are in
>>compliance with the law. We have enclosed a copy of FDA's
>>Small Entity Compliance Guide to assist you with complying
>>with the regulation... blah, blah, blah...
>>http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1115d.pdf
>>===================================================
>
>
> SNIP...
>
> TSS
>
> ########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
posted by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. | 6:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home