Volume 13: Industry Processes and Controls
6. Rendering
Legislative changes and developments in the process post-BSE
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988 (the ruminant feed ban)
Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 (the 1989 SBO Regulations)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Amendment Order 1990 (the 1990 BSE Order)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991
Animal By-Products Order 1992
Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988 (the ruminant feed ban)

6.53 This Order made illegal the use of MBM derived from ruminant animals in ruminant feed. The ban was imposed initially for a limited period, but was later extended, first for another year and then indefinitely. All renderers accepted a mixture of both ruminant and non-ruminant material for rendering. Attempts to produce MBM derived only from non-ruminant material were unsuccessful, as renderers could not guarantee the exclusion of ruminant material. ¹ The renderers' markets for MBM therefore were narrowed. However, only 15 per cent of MBM sold as a feed ingredient was used in ruminant feed. Much of the rest went into pig and poultry feed, and this was allowed until the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Amendment) Order 1996 banned this practice. ² Therefore, there was a minor impact on the size of renderers' markets, but no effect on their processes.

Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 (the 1989 SBO Regulations)

6.54 Under the 1989 SBO Regulations, which banned the use of SBO in human food, SBO could still legally be used in the production of animal feed, and animal feed manufacturers were the major buyers of MBM.

6.55 Once received by a renderer, SBO could not be sent elsewhere, unless handled in the prescribed manner. Effectively, this meant that renderers were obliged to process any SBO that they received, which is what they were doing anyway. Renderers who made products which were not for the human food market - that is, the majority of the industry - could continue to process and sell SBO along with the rest of the raw material which they received.

6.56 Tallow produced from organs designated as SBO was usually of very low grade and so, in theory, would have been excluded from the raw material sent to renderers producing edible products for humans, even before the SBO ban. However, Mr John Baker of Midland Meat Packers said in oral evidence that, in the slaughterhouse, spinal cord might have gone in with the edible fat to be sent for rendering into human food. ³ Renderers of edible material would therefore have had to beware of SBO arriving in the raw material.

Voluntary animal SBO ban

6.57 The ban on the use of SBO in human food led to UKASTA calling upon its members in November 1989 to use only MBM that was 'substantially free [of SBO] on a best efforts basis' in their production of animal feed. In turn, UKRA called upon its members to insist on separation of SBO from other material at the slaughterhouse, and to exclude it from MBM made for use in animal feed. ⁴

6.58 Most animal feed manufacturers followed UKASTA's recommendation and insisted on SBO-free MBM for their feed. Likewise most, but not all, renderers undertook the voluntary measures recommended by UKRA. ⁵ The renderers said that they did their best to ensure that no SBO was included in material that was meant to be SBO-free, but without statutory backing they were reliant on the cooperation of the slaughterhouses. The willingness of slaughterhouse owners and managers to adhere strictly to the requirements varied. ⁶

6.59 Because there was now little demand for SBO, its price fell and it provided a cheaper raw material for conversion into MBM than non-SBO material did. Therefore a two-tier pricing system developed for SBO-free MBM and for MBM derived from SBO, so long as there were still customers who did not insist on its being SBO-free. ⁷

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Amendment Order 1990 (the 1990 BSE Order)

6.60 This Order, implementing the animal SBO ban, came into force on 25 September 1990. ⁸ It prohibited the sale and supply of SBO, and protein derived from SBO, for feeding to animals.

6.61 As seen above, many renderers had already changed their practices because of the voluntary animal SBO ban. The remainder now had to do so, and the two-tier pricing structure ended. Renderers were not in the business of selling or supplying animal feed themselves, and so there were no direct obligations on them under the Order. However, the renderers' main customers, the animal feed manufacturers, were covered by the prohibition; so, for commercial reasons, renderers were forced to keep non-SBO material separate from SBO. No comprehensive guidance was provided to renderers until July 1992, when MAFF published its Code of Practice on 'The Handling of Specified Bovine Offals (SBO) at Rendering Plants', which is discussed below.

6.62 SBO constituted only a small proportion of the raw material received by renderers. The difficulties of ensuring that it was separated from the other material are discussed in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96. PDM's response to the animal SBO ban was to direct all of its SBO raw material and any raw material that contained SBO to one plant, thereby ensuring that all of its other plants were free of SBO. This increased the company's transport costs.

Purchase of greaves for further processing

6.63 This practice created potential quality assurance problems for the purchaser and uncertainty about SBO content. These problems are of particular concern in the context of BSE. A renderer might itself be scrupulous about examining the raw material it received direct from slaughterhouses, but it is difficult to see how it could be absolutely certain of the origin of greaves which it purchased from another renderer for conversion to MBM, or of the quality of the processing. For example, Mr Paul Foxcroft of PDM said:

. . . the variety of greaves received covered the full spectrum from . . . almost black burnt material down to pink very much undercooked material. In fact, on albeit rare occasions, material was so undercooked that it was actually recooked again at Doncaster before it went into the solvent extraction plant. ⁹

Disposal of MBM derived from SBO

6.64 The Order introducing the ban did not specify how such material was to be disposed of.

6.65 In January 1991, MAFF introduced inspection reports in order to confirm that renderers and collection centres that dealt with SBO were complying with the legislation. ¹⁰ The inspection reports had to be submitted every two months. The process required an Animal Health Officer to answer a series of questions about each facility, including how it was disposing of SBO material. ¹¹ The results from the reports indicated that the three options being used for disposal were landfill burial, ploughing into the land and storage. ¹² Prosper De Mulder, for example, was storing the MBM that it had produced in the hope that it could later be used as a fuel. ¹³ Later inspection reports recounted that some of the MBM was being used as a fertiliser. They also showed that some of the tallow derived from SBO was being used in animal feed. ¹⁴ These monitoring reports are discussed more fully in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96.

6.66 Renderers incurred extra costs in the separation, collection, processing and disposal of SBO. Furthermore, closure of all major markets for MBM derived from SBO resulted in a reduction in revenue for renderers. This quickly led renderers to look to slaughterhouses to make up at least some of their loss of profits in the form of collection charges. Where, before the BSE crisis, slaughterhouses were paid for any waste that they sent to renderers, they were now charged for whatever was separated out as SBO and taken away by renderers:

The abattoirs [took] material from a pile where they would be paid £20 a ton for it, and put it in a pile where they would be charged £50-£70 a ton. ¹⁵

MAFF Code of Practice

6.67 Although not a legislative measure, the Code of Practice on the handling of SBO in rendering plants, which was published by MAFF in July 1992, was a direct response to the animal SBO ban. ¹⁶ The purpose of the Code was both to provide guidance and to set out acceptable methods that would best minimise any risk of transmitting the BSE agent.

6.68 The Code of Practice considered pre-process storage and handling; process machinery used prior to cooking; cookers, centrifuges and associated equipment; and storage of processed material derived from SBO. The essence of all the guidance was the separation of SBO from other material. The maintenance of dedicated facilities at all stages was recognised as best practice but, if that was not possible, then:

• SBO should be stored separately and not be allowed to come into contact with other stored material, and after removal the storage facilities should be thoroughly cleansed.
• Separate tools and equipment should be maintained for handling and processing SBO and MBM derived from SBO, which should be clearly marked as for use with SBO, and stored apart from other equipment. Where separate equipment was not practical, all items should be thoroughly cleansed after use.
• Ideally, separate and dedicated crushers, augers and associated equipment should be used for SBO. Where this was impractical, the equipment should either be thoroughly cleansed before it was used for other material, or should be purged twice with sufficient non-SBO material (eg, the equivalent of 15 minutes normal operation). The material used to purge the equipment should then be treated as SBO.
• Ideally, separate and dedicated cookers, centrifuges and associated equipment should be used for SBO. Where this was impractical, the equipment should either be thoroughly cleansed before it was used for other material, or should be purged twice with non-SBO material. The material used to purge the equipment should then be treated as SBO. Continuous cookers should be run substantially free from solid residues, then sufficient non-SBO material (that is, the equivalent of 30 minutes normal processing) should be processed to purge the system. This material should then be treated as SBO.
• All MBM derived from SBO being stored on the premises should be stored in dedicated and separate, leakproof, easily cleanable facilities.

6.69 Some of the larger renderers had multiple lines and were able to dedicate one to SBO, but the smaller renderers often only had one production line, so could not maintain dedicated facilities. Dr Brian Cooke of Dalgety Agriculture Ltd, a compound feed manufacturer, told the Inquiry that he was not satisfied that the cleaning and purging procedures in place were good enough. ¹⁷ Mr Andrew Fleetwood of MAFF said that 15 minutes of normal operation in a large rendering plant, to purge it, would involve the processing of at least one ton of material. While this would greatly reduce the amount of SBO material in the machinery, it could not be guaranteed to purge the system completely, and certainly would not have been sufficient in view of the later discovery that 1 gram or less of material was sufficient to transmit infection. ¹⁸

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991

6.70 This Order came into force on 6 November 1991. A provision which affected renderers stated that MBM derived from SBO could only be removed from a rendering plant under authority of a licence and in accordance with any conditions of that licence. ¹⁹ The only means of disposal of MBM derived from SBO which were approved were burial in a licensed landfill site or incineration. ²⁰ This meant that it could no longer be used as or in fertiliser, although Mr Brian Rogers of UKRA said that this had only ever occurred 'to a very limited extent'. ²¹ This legislation is also addressed in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96.

Animal By-Products Order 1992

6.71 This Order required, in part, that, if by-products fell within any of a list of categories of material not fit for human consumption and if the by-products were disposed of by rendering, they had to be subjected to a temperature of at least 133°C for 20 minutes at a pressure of 3 bar (ie, 2.961 atmospheres), or to any of the various rendering systems specified in Commission Decision 92/562/EEC (a). ²² The resultant product had to be free of heat-resistant pathogenic bacteria spores and salmonella. The only requirement for rendering of other animal by-products (generally speaking, by-products which were fit for human consumption) was that the final product comply with the standards in relation to salmonella. In principle SBO was covered by this Order. In practise this did not lead to any change in handling. Given the separate provisions for handling SBO, it was excluded from the operation of this Order by the Animal By-Products Amendment Order 1996.

Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995

6.72 This Order, made under the Animal Health Act 1981, came into force on 15 August 1995. ²³ It replaced and extended the previous provisions relating to SBO in the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 and the BSE Order 1991. The measures introduced by the 1995 Order affecting renderers included the requirement that SBO be rendered on a separate line dedicated to that purpose, and the SBO had to be stored, handled and rendered separately from other material. It also required the approval of any rendering plant handling SBO.