The above quote and statistics from the final ruling are confusing because by eliminating 90% of potential BSE infectivity, but there are still so many questionable items allowed:

"The full list of SRMs as
defined in U.S. Department of Agriculture and other FDA rulemaking includes the brain,
skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of
the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of
the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia of cattle 30 months of age and older, and the tonsils
and distal ileum of the small intestine of all cattle. Also prohibited in animal feed under
the full SRM ban alternative would be any materials from non-ambulatory disabled cattle
and mechanically separated (MS) beef."

But the ones prohibited are only " (1) the entire carcass of
bovine spongiforrn encephalopathy (BSE)-positive cattle; (2) the brains and spinal cords
from cattle 30 months of age and older; (3) the entire carcass of cattle not inspected and
passed for human consumption that are 30 months of age or older from which brains and
spinal cords were not effectively removed or otherwise effectively excluded from animal
feed; (4) tallow that is derived from BSE-positive cattle; (5) tallow that is derived from
the other materials prohibited by this rule that contains more than 0.15 percent insoluble
impurities; and (6) mechanically separated beef that is derived from the materials
prohibited by this rule."

Weren't those already prohibited?  Have they been allowing tallow and carcasses from BSE-positive cattle all along?  It's kind of hard to see this as progress.


  Something is kind of deceiving in this wording--unless I am misunderstanding the meaning.  It appears that the remaining allowed 10% of potential BSE infectivity accounts for 3 times as much tissue as the 90% that is prohibited. 

Does anyone else see what I mean?  Or take it to mean something different?  I can't understand how this is an acceptable risk.  What does "potential BSE infectivity" even mean, that there is only a 10% chance it will infect something or someone?  That it is responsible for 10% of infections?  Why are we taking the risk, to avoid landfill fees?  This is nuts!:

"Beyond minimizing the volume of CNIPAF, the Agency intends as a mitigation measure,
to allow time to transition to new disposal methods so that environmental problems can
be avoided in those areas of the country that, for example, have high densities of older
cattle in combination with inadequate landfill capacity, or in combination with soil that is
unsuitable for carcass burial....Delaying implementation will also allow time to modify
state and local regulations to address new disposal requirements."

I thought we learned from Flounder and the elk to cattle transmission that BSE is viable in the soil for a long, long--who knows how long--time.  Yet FDA says:

"FDA has carefully considered the potential environmental impact of this action and has
concluded that this action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required."

Sincerely yours...

It might be prudent  to also review the potato toxins (Chaconine & Solanine) found earlier in Natura products:

http://itchmoforums.com/news-recall-related/problems-w-innova-and-test-results-t1028.0.html;msg30974#msg30974

Four of my dogs were eating Nutro, Natural Choice Senior/(silver bag), biscuits,treats and canned food.  In Feb/2008, they were all diagnosed with Mitral Valve Prolapse.  One was also diagnosed with adrenal insufficiency.  I lost my chi/papillon due to Mitral Valve and pancreatitis in June, my male pom to Mitral Valve in June and my lh chi to Mitral Valve and adrenal insufficiency in July.  The remaining female pom has Mitral Valve, liver insufficiency and bladder crystals.  (All four dogs had a clean bill of health last year when I had them checked due to the recall).

The FDA and 5 vets said it was impossible for all four of them to have the same heart problem at the same time without there being an outside influence.

After reading Don's report on copper and zinc toxicity in Nutro food, I took the report to several of those same vets. 

Our regular vet said to stop feeding commercial dog food and to make my own.  He said "people" food is going to be better than what they are selling in those packages.  He is convinced my dogs' health problems are a result of commercial dog food/treats.

cubbie sounds like you have a more informed regular vet - would be a keeper in my book. Maybe there are more like him out there that truly know about nutrition and want the best so they tell you the truth....sigh, we can only hope.