 |
WINNIPEG, Manitoba, Jan. 2 -- A final laboratory test has confirmed that an Alberta dairy cow had mad cow disease, the second case Canada has found in its herd, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Sunday.
Veterinary officials said Thursday that preliminary tests had been positive for the brain-wasting mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
The United States, Canada's largest export market, announced last week that it would begin to accept imports of young, live cattle thought to be at low risk for the disease starting on March 7. American officials said Thursday that there were no plans to change that, despite the preliminary positive test.
The animal did not enter the human food or animal feed supply, and there was no risk to the public.
|
"Yesterday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed that an older dairy cow from Alberta, Canada, has tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The infected animal was born in 1996, prior to the implementation of Canada's 1997 feed ban. No part of the animal entered the human food or animal feed systems.
"USDA remains confident that the animal and public health measures that Canada has in place, including the removal of specified risk material (SRMs) from the human food chain, a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, a national surveillance program and import restrictions, combined with existing U.S. domestic safeguards and the additional safeguards announced as part of USDA's BSE minimal-risk rule announced Dec. 29 provide the utmost protections to U.S. consumers and livestock.
'The extensive risk assessment conducted as part of USDA's rulemaking process took into careful consideration the possibility that Canada could experience additional cases of BSE.
"According to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines, a country may be considered a BSE minimal-risk country if it has less than 2 cases per million cattle over 24 months of age during each of the previous 4 consecutive years. Considering Canada has roughly 5.5 million cattle over 24 months of age, under OIE guidelines, they could detect up to 11 cases of BSE in this population and still be considered a minimal-risk country, as long as their risk mitigation measures and other preventative measures were effective.
"USDA will continue to work closely with CFIA officials as their investigation into this situation progresses."
|
By SCOTT CANON
Think of fields as factories.
Rice and barley could yield wonder drugs, transformed from dinner table staples to medical miracles by laboratory gene tinkering.
Ventria Bioscience, a small California company hoping to reap the harvest of so-called biopharming, is moving a handful of employees and the promise of a blossoming science to Missouri.
Yet the move of Ventria from Sacramento to Maryville, and its plans to plant crops in small plots in northwest and eastern Missouri, brings with it a new chapter of biotech agriculture that has run into resistance around the country and the world.
The chief worry is that drug-brewing crops might contaminate the food supply — scaring the marketplace from using ordinary commodity crops out of fear of drug-laced grain.
Such apprehension has already struck elsewhere.
Opposition from Colorado farmers played a part in the French company Meristem Therapeutics abandoning a trial of pharmaceutical corn in that state last year. San Diego-based Epicyte Pharmaceutical withdrew from the corn developing business in May.
Ventria only got permission from the California Rice Commission to broaden the testing of its crops in that state on the condition that it do so at least 300 miles from the core of rice country and at least 100 miles from any existing paddy.
When the company announced its plans to move from California to Missouri, Elisa Odabashian of Consumers Union in San Francisco told the San Jose Mercury News that “I am happy — but I'm worried about Missouri. … I think the company thinks it'll be an easier row to hoe.”
The company says it isn't fleeing controversy. Rather, it chose from offers from Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Missouri — all states eager to nurture an emerging industry.
|
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. 04-085-1]
Monsanto Co. and Forage Genetics International; Availability of Petition and Environmental Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate
SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International seeking a determination of nonregulated status for alfalfa designated as events J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those regulations, we are soliciting public comments on whether this alfalfa presents a plant pest risk. We are also making available for public comment an environmental assessment for the proposed determination of nonregulated status.
DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before January 24, 2005.
|
The US agrochemical giant Monsanto has agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine for bribing an Indonesian official.
Monsanto admitted one of its employees paid the senior official two years ago in a bid to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its cotton.
In addition to the penalty, Monsanto also agreed to three years' close monitoring of its business practices by the American authorities.
It said it accepted full responsibility for what it called improper activities.
A former senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002.
The manager told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees".
Monsanto was facing stiff opposition from activists and farmers who were campaigning against its plans to introduce genetically modified cotton in Indonesia.
Despite the bribe, the official did not authorise the waiving of the environmental study requirement.
Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking officials between 1997 and 2002.
|
Brussels addresses the issue of consumer cynicism and fear of agricultural biotechnology in European citizens, setting up a thematic network on the safety risk assessment of genetically modified food crops, the Entransfood project, in order to stimulate the debate.
A reflection of consumer’s poor regard for GM foodstuffs, in total Europe has planted about 58,000 hectares of GM maize in Spain, lagging far behind the US, Canada and Argentina that have planted millions of hectares of GM crops.
Funded under the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5), Entransfood sought to identify prerequisites for introducing agricultural biotechnology products in a way that is largely acceptable to European society.
“It is important to explicitly address public concerns and to develop new methods for stakeholders' involvement and public consultation," states the project consortium, consisting of 65 partners from 13 different European countries, including representatives from academia, regulatory agencies, food manufacturers, retailers and consumer groups.
According to CORDIS, the project has already evaluated issues of the safety of GM crop derived foods and paid attention to issues like detection and traceability and public attitude towards GM food crops.
"Risk assessment of GM foods has focused on adverse health effects for humans and the environment, but public concern is much broader, focusing not only on risks, but also on who benefits, what are the needs and how does it contribute to a sustainable agriculture," adds the consortia.
|