USDA Asks For Comments On Melamine Decisions

The FDA and the USDA have concluded that melamine-tainted food that was fed to poultry , fish and pork posses little risk to the public’s health. Now, they are asking for your feedback on the decision-making process that led to that report.

Comments to the Federal Register associated with the FSIS issuance must be received by Aug. 28, 2007.

Read the full decisions and where to send your feedback after the jump.

Government reports:

Sending in your comments:

  • Comments to the Federal Register associated with the FSIS issuance must be received by Aug. 28, 2007.
  • Submissions must include the agency name and docket number FSIS-2007-0018.
  • Comments may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at; by mail, to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th St. SW, Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250; or e-mail,
  • Comments will also be posted on the FSIS Web site at

(Thanks mike)

15 Responses to “USDA Asks For Comments On Melamine Decisions”

  1. cats says:

    I am going to USDA website right now. I did not like the USDA releasing all the animals into the human food chain. My cats and my husband had to have additional melamine as a result. It could be accumulative.

  2. 4lgdfriend says:


  3. Elena L says:

    Went to website & found FSIS-2007-0014,…0015…0016…0017 & skip to FSIS-2007-0019 no FSIS-2007-0018 that I could find.I know I tried to comment a while ago when I first saw this mentioned elsewhere & figured I’d check again.If someone else has submitted on the site please say how you found the document.The instructions given yielded no document.

  4. Captn' Carl says:

    This is a parody article - right? You’re kidding with this snow job- right?
    Are we expected to “get on board” with this whacko “We’re from the Government and we’re here to help” Crapola?

    Endorse or participate in this? Who are they trying to double talk and make an ass of again with this? Hah! I’d rather spit into the wind!

  5. mittens says:

    cyber circular file.

  6. thomas says:

    Are they joking? Have they banned all imports from China? Have they arrested the people in this country who added melamine to feed products? Have they declared Farm Act 2007 a misappropriation of federal funds? Have they declared it illegal as it would further take away our right to know about the country of origin , Gmo , biotechnology of meat ? I will not trust them until they start protecting the people , our pets and stop taking orders from farm groups and agri businesses. THEY ALL SHOULD BE FIREd !!!!

  7. Krista says:

    How they handled the melachickens and melapork and all the other toxins in the food, both human and pet that where publically marketed to the masses??? LOL !!!

    Well… Let’s just remind them of a few things here… per their .gov link…

    What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed
    Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health


    Table 1. Animal feed ingredients that are legally used in U.S. animal feeds

    Animal -

    Rendered animal protein from Meat meal, meat meal tankage, meat and bone
    meal, poultry meal, animal the slaughter of food by-product meal, dried
    animal blood, blood meal, feather meal, egg-shell production animals and
    other meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry, hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and
    animal animals digest from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled animals
    including deer and elk Animal waste Dried ruminant waste, dried swine waste,
    dried poultry litter, and undried processed animal waste products



    Food-animal production in the United States has changed markedly in the past
    century, and these changes have paralleled major changes in animal feed
    formulations. While this industrialized system of food-animal production may
    result in increased production efficiencies, some of the changes in animal
    feeding practices may result in unintended ADVERSE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FOR CONSUMERS OF ANIMAL-BASED FOOD PRODUCTS . Currently, the use of animal feed
    INCLUDING rendered animal products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and
    fats, could result in higher levels of bacteria, antibioticresistant
    bacteria, prions, arsenic, and dioxinlike compounds in animals and resulting
    animal-based food products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human
    health effects among consumers could include increases in bacterial
    infections (antibioticresistant and nonresistant) and increases in the risk
    of developing chronic (often fatal) diseases
    such as vCJD. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide range of potential human
    health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are
    little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts
    of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed.
    In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on
    complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail meat
    products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked to this
    information. These surveillance inadequacies make it difficult to conduct
    rigorous epidemiologic studies and risk assessments
    that could identify the extent to which specific human health risks are
    ultimately associated with animal feeding practices. For example, as noted
    above, there are insufficient data to determine whether other human
    foodborne bacterial illnesses besides those caused by S. enterica serotype
    Agona are associated with animal feeding practices. Likewise, there are
    insufficient data to determine the percentage of antibiotic-resistant human
    bacterial infections that are attributed to the nontherapeutic use of
    antibiotics in animal feed. Moreover, little research has been conducted to
    determine whether the use of organoarsenicals in animal feed, which can lead
    to elevated levels of arsenic in meat products (Lasky et al. 2004),
    contributes to increases in cancer risk. In order to address these research
    gaps, the following principal actions are necessary within the United
    States: a) implementation of a nationwide reporting system of the specific
    amounts and types of feed ingredients of concern to public health that are
    incorporated into animal feed, including antibiotics, arsenicals, rendered
    animal products, fats, and animal waste; b) funding and development of
    robust surveillance systems that monitor biological, chemical, and other
    etiologic agents throughout the animal-based food-production chain “from
    farm to fork” to human health outcomes; and c) increased communication and
    collaboration among feed professionals, food-animal producers, and
    veterinary and public health officials.

    Amy R. Sapkota,1,2 Lisa Y. Lefferts,1,3 Shawn McKenzie,1 and Polly Walker1
    1Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bloomberg School of Public
    Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Maryland Institute for
    Applied Environmental Health, College of Health and Human Performance,
    University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA;
    3Lisa Y. Lefferts Consulting, Nellysford, Virginia, USA

    Sapkota et al. 668 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 5 | May 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives


  8. Trudy Jackson says:

    Elena, i went to the site too. I couldn’t figure out what to do or where to go?
    Krista, Very well written. Thanks

  9. petslave says:

    hmmm, a way to get the most vocal dissentors’ names & numbers?

  10. Maryl says:

    Just another indication of the quality of our tax-payer supported agencies.

    Here’s an article I found on getting information under the Freedom of information act from the FDA:

    “Freedom of Information Act

    U.S. agencies are required to provide access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act, a law passed in 1966 to increase accountability. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the measure, he said in a statement: “A democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits.”

    Requests to the FDA, which regulates food, drugs and medical devices, can involve life-and-death matters, including reports of deadly effects from medications and studies used to justify the safety or effectiveness of products cleared for sale. ”

    “The average number of unfulfilled requests has increased across 26 federal agencies tracked by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, a group in Arlington, Virginia, that advocates access to government records. Reporters from news organizations, including Bloomberg News, are among those whose requests the FDA hasn’t fulfilled.

    Year-End Backlog

    The coalition compared the year-end backlog of requests with the number processed during the year. For fiscal 2005, the most recent data available, the backlog at 26 agencies equaled 31 percent of the requests. Applying the same calculation to the FDA, which wasn’t included in the tally, the ratio was 94 percent, according to data on the FDA’s Web site. ”

    “Claudia Krcmarik can’t get documents about her father-in-law’s death during a medical study. Meryl Nass keeps asking for records she thinks will show an anthrax vaccine is dangerous. The American Bakers Association’s request for a paper on the safety of imported honey has languished.

    All filed public information requests with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at least four years ago and have yet to receive what they asked for — even though American law says agencies must release records “promptly.” ”

    My feedback to the FDA is simple: The laws and regulations are in place. We NEED you to follow them!

  11. Dennis says:


    So, they want us to leave them our names and comments about how they abysmally failed to protect us and our pets and animal feed? They really don’t want us to tell them we KNOW they have failed to implement irreversible corrective action to prevent this from ever happening again.

    Perhaps they just want their perceived trouble makers’ identities, not any constructive remarks. Freedom of Speech is a troublesome thing and shockingly something some Congressional members in both parties are trying right now to eliminate.

    Here would be what I’d post: I hope you don’t take this personally, but I’ve ask Congress and the Administration to fire your top leaders in charge of this pet food recall fiasco. And I’ve asked Congress to reorganize all your government health agencies into one. Do we believe we’re safe with melamine in any food/feed? No. It accumulates in the form of kidney and bladder stones per the CDC site. And I’d expect that continued exposure doesn’t help the stones that have already formed. Do we think the already formed stones are going to dissolve? No. And there wasn’t any approved medical treatment at the time. The cyanuric acid wasn’t even listed on the CDC site. The dilution theory had holes. It lacks consideration for anyone who consistently eats the same tainted foods due to health factors like allergies to other choices. It also lacks consideration of other chemicals that might be present. And imagine what might happen to people who chose to eat only organ meats in which the taint probably concentrated during this fiasco? And it isn’t helpful to see E Coli O:H157 recalls for meat LONG AFTER the beef has been sold and eaten. I’d like to see why that recall was so slow. And why does the FDA think that withholding the companies’ names who received or sold tainted product is in the consumers’ best interests? Why did the public have to point out that gas chromatography was the better way to detect this taint while experts seemed to think there wasn’t any way to detect it? Why does the FDA think that withholding the name of the fifth taint is in the public’s interest? Why hasn’t the FDA enforcement arm filed criminal charges in the pet food fiasco yet? Why is the FDA permitting Chinese goods to continue to come into the country with taints like melamine, acetaminophen, lead, filth… Why is only 1-2% of the overall product being inspected when we know the product taints are so numerous? Why aren’t companies involved in exporting or importing such taints heavily fined and on a third strike why don’t they loose all their import privileges? They should be paying to inspect product prior to its arrival.

    I figure if Congress stirs the pot, reorgs and cuts the jobs while creating new ones, reallocates more money, rearranges who has access to the industries’ lobby money, perhaps that will temporarily reduce any potential greed factor and reemphasize consumer protection, presuming special interest and industry money don’t lobby to make the situation even worse.

    So, I’ll vote with my consumer dollars for safer human grade pet foods, more caring companies, and organic human foods and help make the industries realize they are loosing marketshare when they are careless.

  12. High Note says:

    I went to the sight and clicked their email button and you have to put the docket number on your email and the docket number is F515-2007-0018 you can write more by doing it this way so they said on the sight I got it from.

  13. High Note says:

    oops I wrote that wrong… it is FSIS-2002-0018 not F515 sorry….

  14. High Note says:

    Dennis you said it all quite well! I do not see why they would want our commits now when it is already too late to do anything about it! Makes me wonder the purpose in this? Anyone got any ideas why?

  15. pj0908 says:

    Excuse me….possess little risk….what does that mean? Is this a lesson in relativity? Excuse me again…..I expect the food to have NO risk. I recommend tne pin brains who made this decision test all of our food for us. So if the danger is only a little it is okay? Are they for real???????????

E-mail It