Rapid Responses to:

NEWS: In brief BMJ 2000; 320: 8b [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

U.S. Scientist should be concerned with a CJD epidemic in the U.S., as well...

Terry S Singeltary   (2 January 2000)

U.S. Scientist should be concerned with a CJD epidemic in the U.S., as well... 2 January 2000
Terry S Singeltary retired Send response to journal: Re: U.S. Scientist should be concerned with a CJD epidemic in the U.S., as well...	In reading your short article about 'Scientist warn of CJD epidemic' news in brief Jan. 1, 2000. I find the findings in the PNAS old news, made famous again. Why is the U.S. still sitting on their butts, ignoring the facts? We have the beginning of a CJD epidemic in the U.S., and the U.S. Gov. is doing everything in it's power to conceal it. The exact same recipe for B.S.E. existed in the U.S. for years and years. In reading over the Qualitative Analysis of BSE Risk Factors-1, this is a 25 page report by the USDA:APHIS:VS. It could have been done in one page. The first page, fourth paragraph says it all; "Similarities exist in the two countries usage of continuous rendering technology and the lack of usage of solvents, however, large differences still remain with other risk factors which greatly reduce the potential risk at the national level." Then, the next 24 pages tries to down-play the high risks of B.S.E. in the U.S., with nothing more than the cattle to sheep ratio count, and the geographical locations of herds and flocks. That's all the evidence they can come up with, in the next 24 pages. Something else I find odd, page 16; "In the United Kingdom there is much concern for a specific continuous rendering technology which uses lower temperatures and accounts for 25 percent of total output. This technology was _originally_ designed and imported from the United States. However, the specific application in the production process is _believed_ to be different in the two countries." A few more factors to consider, page 15; "Figure 26 compares animal protein production for the two countries. The calculations are based on slaughter numbers, fallen stock estimates, and product yield coefficients. This approach is used due to variation of up to 80 percent from different reported sources. At 3.6 million tons, the United States produces 8 times more animal rendered product than the United Kingdom." "The risk of introducing the BSE agent through sheep meat and bone meal is more acute in both relative and absolute terms in the United Kingdom (Figures 27 and 28). Note that sheep meat and bone meal accounts for 14 percent, or 61 thousand tons, in the United Kingdom versus 0.6 percent or 22 thousand tons in the United States. For sheep greater than 1 year, this is less than one-tenth of one percent of the United States supply." "The potential risk of amplification of the BSE agent through cattle meat and bone meal is much greater in the United States where it accounts for 59 percent of total product or almost 5 times more than the total amount of rendered product in the United Kingdom." Considering, it would only take _one_ scrapie infected sheep to contaminate the feed. Considering Scrapie has run rampant in the U.S. for years, as of Aug. 1999, 950 scrapie infected flocks. Also, Considering only one quarter spoonful of scrapie infected material is lethal to a cow. Considering all this, the sheep to cow ration is meaningless. As I said, it's 24 pages of B.S.e. To be continued... Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA