Post by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. on Jul 8, 2023 9:21:09 GMT -6
TME, 589.2000 (21 C.F.R. 589.2000), atypical L-BSE, who’s testing MINK for TSE?
Rangen Inc 2/11/10
Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421 Telephone: 425-486-8788 FAX: 425-483-4996
February 11, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 10-11
Christopher T. Rangen, President Rangen, Inc. 115-13th Avenue South PO Box 706 Buhl, Idaho 83316
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Rangen: On June 9-11, 2009, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators inspected your animal feed manufacturing facilities located at 115-13th Avenue South, Buhl, Idaho. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000 (21 C.F.R. 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, resulting in products being manufactured and distributed by your facility that were adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4), and misbranded within the meaning of section 403(a)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). Our investigation determined that adulteration resulted from the failure of your firm to provide for measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination. The adulterated feed was subsequently misbranded because it was not properly labeled. Specifically, we found:
1. Your firm failed to provide for and use cleanout procedures or other means adequate to prevent carry-over of products that contain or may contain proteins derived from mammalian tissues into animal feed that may be used for ruminants, as required by 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(iii)(B). Since your feed is prepared, packed, or held under these conditions it is, therefore, adulterated under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4).
• Mink feed that was not labeled "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants," in accordance with 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i) and that, therefore, might be fed to ruminants, was produced using the same equipment as aquaculture feed that contains proteins derived from mammalian tissues, such as meat and bone meal. You conducted no clean-outs or flushes of equipment to remove proteins derived from mammalian tissues that may have been present before manufacturing the mink feed that might be fed to ruminants.
• The auger trucks you used to deliver bulk mink feed which contained or may have contained proteins derived from mammalian tissues were not subject to an effective clean-out prior to their use to deliver bulk animal feed, including ruminant feed, that did not contain such materials. There were no procedures to clean the trucks to remove proteins derived from mammalian tissues before shipment of animal feeds that did not contain such materials.
2. You failed to label all products which contained or may have contained proteins derived from mammalian tissues with the statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants," as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(i). Such products are misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). The misbranded product includes bulk mink feed.
• On June 9, 2009, the investigators observed approximately (b)(4) pallets of (b)(4) 50 pound bags of (b)(4) MINK FEED, lot 06/05/09. All bagged mink feed, as well as approximately (b)(4)% of bulk mink feed, manufactured at your facility, was produced using the aquaculture feed production equipment used to produce feed containing proteins derived from mammalian tissues. Because mink feed produced using this equipment may have contained mammalian tissues, it was not properly labeled, as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(i).
This letter is not intended to serve 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 the above violations and you should establish a system whereby violations do not occur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.
We acknowledge your July 31, 2009 letter detailing procedures you had implemented or planned to implement to prevent future violations of FDA regulations relating to mammalian proteins in animal feed. In particular the letter stated that Rangen would no longer purchase meat and bone meal for use in any of its animal feeds and that existing inventories of mammalian protein ingredients would be exhausted by December 31, 2009. Division Manager, Joy Kinyon made similar assertions in the course of FDA's June 2009 inspection. The July 31, 2009 letter further set out procedures Rangen would use to remedy observed violations of FDA regulations while mammalian proteins were still being used at Rangen. Finally you explained steps taken to recover or relabel feed that may have been contaminated due to commingling resulting from your manufacturing and distribution procedures. Within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter you should, in writing, confirm the steps you took prior to receiving this letter and notify FDA of steps you have taken since receiving this letter to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
Your written reply should be directed to Scott A. Nabe, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell, Washington 98021-4421. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Mr. Nabe at (425) 483-4753.
Sincerely,
/s/
Charles M. Breen District Director Seattle District
cc: Joy A. Kinyon, Division Manager, Aquaculture Feeds-General Feeds Rangen, Inc. PO Box 706 115-13th Avenue South Buhl, Idaho 83316
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm201893.htm
See archived link;
web.archive.org/web/20100308043229/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm201893.htm
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion Origin USA?, what if?
Research Project: Pathobiology, Genetics, and Detection of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: Sheep are susceptible to the agent of TME by intracranial inoculation and have evidence of infectivity in lymphoid tissues
Author item CASSMANN, ERIC - Oak Ridge Institute For Science And Education (ORISE) item MOORE, SARA - Oak Ridge Institute For Science And Education (ORISE) item SMITH, JODI - Iowa State University item Greenlee, Justin
Submitted to: Frontiers in Veterinary Science Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal Publication Acceptance Date: 11/14/2019 Publication Date: 11/29/2019 Citation: Cassmann, E.D., Moore, S.J., Smith, J.D., Greenlee, J.J. 2019.
Sheep are susceptible to the agent of TME by intracranial inoculation and have evidence of infectivity in lymphoid tissues.
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 6:430. doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00430
DOI: doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00430
Interpretive Summary: Prion diseases are protein misfolding diseases that are transmissible between animals. The outcome of prion infection is irreversible brain damage and death. Transmission can occur between animals of the same or different species, however, transmission between different species is usually less efficient due to the species barrier, which results from differences in the amino acid sequence of the prion protein between the donor and recipient species. The present work evaluated whether transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) can infect sheep. Our results demonstrate that sheep are susceptible to the TME agent and that the TME agent has similar properties to the agent of L-type atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (L-BSE). This work supports the ideas that L-BSE is a possible source for TME in mink and that the practice of feeding cattle with neurologic disease to mink should be avoided. This information is important to farmers who raise cattle, sheep, or mink.
Technical Abstract: Transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) is a food borne prion disease. Epidemiological and experimental evidence suggests similarities between the agent of TME and L-BSE. This experiment demonstrates the susceptibility of four different genotypes of sheep to the agent of TME by intracranial inoculation. The four genotypes of sheep used in this experiment had polymorphisms corresponding to codons 136 and 171 of the prion gene: VV136QQ171, AV136QQ171, AA136QQ171, and AA136QR171. All intracranially inoculated sheep without comorbidities (15/15) developed clinical scrapie and had detectable PrPSc by immunohistochemistry, western blot, and enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The mean incubation periods in TME infected sheep correlated with their relative genotypic susceptibility. There was peripheral distribution of PrPSc in the trigeminal ganglion and neuromuscular spindles; however, unlike classical scrapie and C-BSE in sheep, ovine TME did not accumulate in the lymphoid tissue. To rule out the presence of infectious, but proteinase K susceptible PrPSc, the lymph nodes of two sheep genotypes, VV136QQ171 and AA136QQ171, were bioassayed in transgenic ovinized mice. None of the mice (0/32) inoculated by the intraperitoneal route had detectable PrPSc by EIA. Interestingly, mice intracranially inoculated with RPLN tissue from a VV136QQ171 sheep were EIA positive (3/17) indicating that sheep inoculated with TME harbor infectivity in their lymph nodes. Western blot analysis demonstrated similarities in the migration patterns between ovine TME and the bovine TME inoculum. Overall, these results demonstrate that sheep are susceptible to the agent of TME, and that the tissue distribution of PrPSc in TME infected sheep is distinct from classical scrapie.
www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=363305
www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=360665
www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=373668
Previous work has shown that the Stetsonville, WI outbreak of TME could have been precipitated by feeding mink a downer cow with atypical BSE; therefore, it very well may have originated from a cow with L-BSE. The agent of TME appears to remain stable, and it has a high transmission efficiency after a sequence of interspecies transmission events. Although C-BSE is the archetypal foodborne TSE, our findings indicate that L-BSE and bTME have greater transmission efficiencies in bovinized mice. Previous work has demonstrated that L-BSE also is more virulent than C-BSE in mice expressing the human prion protein [46, 55]. Although the documented incidence of L-BSE is low, the propensity of L-BSE and the TME agent to cross species barriers support the continued monitoring for atypical BSE.
bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-020-02611-0
***>This work supports the ideas that L-BSE is a possible source for TME in mink and that the practice of feeding cattle with neurologic disease to mink should be avoided. This information is important to farmers who raise cattle, sheep, or mink.<***
1985
Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy Results from Feeding Infected Cattle Over the next 8-10 weeks, approximately 40% of all the adult mink on the farm died from TME.
snip...
The rancher was a ''dead stock'' feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy cattle...
web.archive.org/web/20090506002258/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf
web.archive.org/web/20090506001031/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09a/tab01.pdf
web.archive.org/web/20090506024922/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/06/10004001.pdf
FRIDAY, MAY 19, 2023
USDA Announces Atypical L-Type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE Detection
bovineprp.blogspot.com/2023/05/usda-announces-atypical-l-type-bovine.html
prpsc.proboards.com/thread/122/announces-atypical-bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
SATURDAY, MAY 20, 2023
Tennessee State Veterinarian Alerts Cattle Owners to Disease Detection Mad Cow atypical L-Type BSE
bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2023/05/tennessee-state-veterinarian-alerts.html
prpsc.proboards.com/thread/123/tennessee-veterinarian-alerts-cattle-confirmed
Monday, May 22, 2023
BSE TSE Prion MAD COW TESTING IN THE USA COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES?
specifiedriskmaterial.blogspot.com/2023/05/bse-tse-prion-mad-cow-testing-in-usa.html
terry
Rangen Inc 2/11/10
Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Seattle District Pacific Region 22201 23rd Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021-4421 Telephone: 425-486-8788 FAX: 425-483-4996
February 11, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 10-11
Christopher T. Rangen, President Rangen, Inc. 115-13th Avenue South PO Box 706 Buhl, Idaho 83316
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Rangen: On June 9-11, 2009, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators inspected your animal feed manufacturing facilities located at 115-13th Avenue South, Buhl, Idaho. The inspection revealed significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 589.2000 (21 C.F.R. 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, resulting in products being manufactured and distributed by your facility that were adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4), and misbranded within the meaning of section 403(a)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). Our investigation determined that adulteration resulted from the failure of your firm to provide for measures to avoid commingling or cross-contamination. The adulterated feed was subsequently misbranded because it was not properly labeled. Specifically, we found:
1. Your firm failed to provide for and use cleanout procedures or other means adequate to prevent carry-over of products that contain or may contain proteins derived from mammalian tissues into animal feed that may be used for ruminants, as required by 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(iii)(B). Since your feed is prepared, packed, or held under these conditions it is, therefore, adulterated under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4).
• Mink feed that was not labeled "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants," in accordance with 21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(i) and that, therefore, might be fed to ruminants, was produced using the same equipment as aquaculture feed that contains proteins derived from mammalian tissues, such as meat and bone meal. You conducted no clean-outs or flushes of equipment to remove proteins derived from mammalian tissues that may have been present before manufacturing the mink feed that might be fed to ruminants.
• The auger trucks you used to deliver bulk mink feed which contained or may have contained proteins derived from mammalian tissues were not subject to an effective clean-out prior to their use to deliver bulk animal feed, including ruminant feed, that did not contain such materials. There were no procedures to clean the trucks to remove proteins derived from mammalian tissues before shipment of animal feeds that did not contain such materials.
2. You failed to label all products which contained or may have contained proteins derived from mammalian tissues with the statement, "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants," as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(i). Such products are misbranded under Section 403(a)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1). The misbranded product includes bulk mink feed.
• On June 9, 2009, the investigators observed approximately (b)(4) pallets of (b)(4) 50 pound bags of (b)(4) MINK FEED, lot 06/05/09. All bagged mink feed, as well as approximately (b)(4)% of bulk mink feed, manufactured at your facility, was produced using the aquaculture feed production equipment used to produce feed containing proteins derived from mammalian tissues. Because mink feed produced using this equipment may have contained mammalian tissues, it was not properly labeled, as required by 21 C.F.R. 589.2000(e)(1)(i).
This letter is not intended to serve 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 the above violations and you should establish a system whereby violations do not occur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action, such seizure and/or injunction, without further notice.
We acknowledge your July 31, 2009 letter detailing procedures you had implemented or planned to implement to prevent future violations of FDA regulations relating to mammalian proteins in animal feed. In particular the letter stated that Rangen would no longer purchase meat and bone meal for use in any of its animal feeds and that existing inventories of mammalian protein ingredients would be exhausted by December 31, 2009. Division Manager, Joy Kinyon made similar assertions in the course of FDA's June 2009 inspection. The July 31, 2009 letter further set out procedures Rangen would use to remedy observed violations of FDA regulations while mammalian proteins were still being used at Rangen. Finally you explained steps taken to recover or relabel feed that may have been contaminated due to commingling resulting from your manufacturing and distribution procedures. Within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter you should, in writing, confirm the steps you took prior to receiving this letter and notify FDA of steps you have taken since receiving this letter to bring your firm into compliance with the law. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
Your written reply should be directed to Scott A. Nabe, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell, Washington 98021-4421. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Mr. Nabe at (425) 483-4753.
Sincerely,
/s/
Charles M. Breen District Director Seattle District
cc: Joy A. Kinyon, Division Manager, Aquaculture Feeds-General Feeds Rangen, Inc. PO Box 706 115-13th Avenue South Buhl, Idaho 83316
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm201893.htm
See archived link;
web.archive.org/web/20100308043229/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm201893.htm
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE TSE Prion Origin USA?, what if?
Research Project: Pathobiology, Genetics, and Detection of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Location: Virus and Prion Research
Title: Sheep are susceptible to the agent of TME by intracranial inoculation and have evidence of infectivity in lymphoid tissues
Author item CASSMANN, ERIC - Oak Ridge Institute For Science And Education (ORISE) item MOORE, SARA - Oak Ridge Institute For Science And Education (ORISE) item SMITH, JODI - Iowa State University item Greenlee, Justin
Submitted to: Frontiers in Veterinary Science Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal Publication Acceptance Date: 11/14/2019 Publication Date: 11/29/2019 Citation: Cassmann, E.D., Moore, S.J., Smith, J.D., Greenlee, J.J. 2019.
Sheep are susceptible to the agent of TME by intracranial inoculation and have evidence of infectivity in lymphoid tissues.
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 6:430. doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00430
DOI: doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00430
Interpretive Summary: Prion diseases are protein misfolding diseases that are transmissible between animals. The outcome of prion infection is irreversible brain damage and death. Transmission can occur between animals of the same or different species, however, transmission between different species is usually less efficient due to the species barrier, which results from differences in the amino acid sequence of the prion protein between the donor and recipient species. The present work evaluated whether transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) can infect sheep. Our results demonstrate that sheep are susceptible to the TME agent and that the TME agent has similar properties to the agent of L-type atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (L-BSE). This work supports the ideas that L-BSE is a possible source for TME in mink and that the practice of feeding cattle with neurologic disease to mink should be avoided. This information is important to farmers who raise cattle, sheep, or mink.
Technical Abstract: Transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) is a food borne prion disease. Epidemiological and experimental evidence suggests similarities between the agent of TME and L-BSE. This experiment demonstrates the susceptibility of four different genotypes of sheep to the agent of TME by intracranial inoculation. The four genotypes of sheep used in this experiment had polymorphisms corresponding to codons 136 and 171 of the prion gene: VV136QQ171, AV136QQ171, AA136QQ171, and AA136QR171. All intracranially inoculated sheep without comorbidities (15/15) developed clinical scrapie and had detectable PrPSc by immunohistochemistry, western blot, and enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The mean incubation periods in TME infected sheep correlated with their relative genotypic susceptibility. There was peripheral distribution of PrPSc in the trigeminal ganglion and neuromuscular spindles; however, unlike classical scrapie and C-BSE in sheep, ovine TME did not accumulate in the lymphoid tissue. To rule out the presence of infectious, but proteinase K susceptible PrPSc, the lymph nodes of two sheep genotypes, VV136QQ171 and AA136QQ171, were bioassayed in transgenic ovinized mice. None of the mice (0/32) inoculated by the intraperitoneal route had detectable PrPSc by EIA. Interestingly, mice intracranially inoculated with RPLN tissue from a VV136QQ171 sheep were EIA positive (3/17) indicating that sheep inoculated with TME harbor infectivity in their lymph nodes. Western blot analysis demonstrated similarities in the migration patterns between ovine TME and the bovine TME inoculum. Overall, these results demonstrate that sheep are susceptible to the agent of TME, and that the tissue distribution of PrPSc in TME infected sheep is distinct from classical scrapie.
www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=363305
www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=360665
www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=373668
Previous work has shown that the Stetsonville, WI outbreak of TME could have been precipitated by feeding mink a downer cow with atypical BSE; therefore, it very well may have originated from a cow with L-BSE. The agent of TME appears to remain stable, and it has a high transmission efficiency after a sequence of interspecies transmission events. Although C-BSE is the archetypal foodborne TSE, our findings indicate that L-BSE and bTME have greater transmission efficiencies in bovinized mice. Previous work has demonstrated that L-BSE also is more virulent than C-BSE in mice expressing the human prion protein [46, 55]. Although the documented incidence of L-BSE is low, the propensity of L-BSE and the TME agent to cross species barriers support the continued monitoring for atypical BSE.
bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-020-02611-0
***>This work supports the ideas that L-BSE is a possible source for TME in mink and that the practice of feeding cattle with neurologic disease to mink should be avoided. This information is important to farmers who raise cattle, sheep, or mink.<***
1985
Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy Results from Feeding Infected Cattle Over the next 8-10 weeks, approximately 40% of all the adult mink on the farm died from TME.
snip...
The rancher was a ''dead stock'' feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy cattle...
web.archive.org/web/20090506002258/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09/tab05.pdf
web.archive.org/web/20090506001031/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m09a/tab01.pdf
web.archive.org/web/20090506024922/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/06/10004001.pdf
FRIDAY, MAY 19, 2023
USDA Announces Atypical L-Type Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE Detection
bovineprp.blogspot.com/2023/05/usda-announces-atypical-l-type-bovine.html
prpsc.proboards.com/thread/122/announces-atypical-bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
SATURDAY, MAY 20, 2023
Tennessee State Veterinarian Alerts Cattle Owners to Disease Detection Mad Cow atypical L-Type BSE
bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2023/05/tennessee-state-veterinarian-alerts.html
prpsc.proboards.com/thread/123/tennessee-veterinarian-alerts-cattle-confirmed
Monday, May 22, 2023
BSE TSE Prion MAD COW TESTING IN THE USA COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES?
specifiedriskmaterial.blogspot.com/2023/05/bse-tse-prion-mad-cow-testing-in-usa.html
terry