2.42 The initial incision in the evisceration process was made high up in the mid-line where the internal organs are not in contact with the abdominal wall. This allowed the 'abdominal mass' to be removed first. The abdominal mass is a group of organs that can be removed from the abdomen in a 'bundle', and includes the stomachs and large and small intestines (including faecal contents), together with their surrounding fatty membranes, the pancreas and the urinary bladder. ²⁶ The offal was removed from the highest point downwards. The large rumen was the first organ to emerge, followed by the intestines. These were pulled down, severed from under the spine, and came away along with the bung, bladder, vagina and uterus (where applicable). The spleen is attached to the rumen, and was also removed at this point.

2.43 The liver was removed separately by making a circular incision around the periphery of the diaphragm. The oesophagus was separated from the trachea and lungs in order to tie it, which allowed the lungs to be removed through the diaphragm without rupturing the oesophagus. The heart and larynx were also removed at this point. The kidneys were exposed, but not removed until later.

2.44 The above is a 'walk through' description of the evisceration process. In practice, evisceration was performed very quickly, and most of the organs tumbled from the suspended animal onto the inspection table in something of a shapeless mass.

2.45 This was the second post-mortem inspection point. The kidneys were removed after the inspection of the offal.

2.46 The treatment of the organs after evisceration appears to have varied from slaughterhouse to slaughterhouse depending on the use to be made of them. The red offal which a particular slaughterhouse had contracts to sell as human food would be separated and sent to an 'offal room' for sorting, then on to the chiller. The 'abdominal mass' and other offal not kept for individual sale by the slaughterhouse were sent to a separate area known as the gut room for sorting and disposal (see below for a description of the gut room operation). In a large slaughterhouse, the offal would be sent down chutes to this room; in small slaughterhouses it was moved in containers.

2.47 For some offal, such as the thymus, the market for use as human food was very small, so not all slaughterhouses would have had contracts to sell them for this purpose. In that event they were sent to the gut room as opposed to an offal room. Mr Peter Carrigan of Specialpack Ltd, which operated a number of gut rooms, said in oral evidence that the spleen was usually sent to the gut room along with the abdominal mass. ²⁷ However, other evidence received by the Inquiry indicated that it was removed separately and presented as red offal. ²⁸

(xii) Carcass-splitting and removal of spinal cord

2.48 Following evisceration, the hind legs of the carcass were anchored as far apart as possible. The carcass was then split vertically in half, using a band saw, reciprocating saw or circular saw (although meat cleavers were sometimes used in smaller slaughterhouses), so that the carcass could be further inspected and reduced to a manageable size. A power saw took about 15-25 seconds to complete the splitting. The cut was made through the mid-line of the spinal column although some veering from the mid-line would inevitably take place. Generally, the spinal cord was then removed, to improve the appearance of the meat, by drawing a thumb, knife or blunt hook down the length of the spinal canal. Most spinal cord was thrown into a receptacle to be sent for rendering, or washed to drains. A small amount would have remained stuck to the spinal column and been passed on to mechanically recovered meat manufacture or for rendering. ²⁹

2.49 Mr Raymond Bradley, the CVL's BSE research coordinator, described the process of carcass-splitting in oral evidence:

. . . in all bovine adults carcasses are split, and there are a number of ways of doing it. Mostly they use, and today I think the majority, if not all of them, are reciprocating or band saws of some description. In . . . some . . . there were circular saws just like you would use for sawing through a large log of wood. And these were water-cooled. In order to stop the spray, the carcasses, at the point of splitting, were enclosed in what we might loosely call like a shower cabinet but it was made of polythene and it was thick polythene or that kind of material and it was incomplete in stopping the spray, and it was absolutely obvious to me, because I was getting sprayed that there was water, at any rate, coming out from this, and any carcass or person in the vicinity could potentially be exposed to this. ³⁰

2.50 Mr John Baker of the MLC said in oral evidence:

The reason we [removed the spinal cord] in those days was when you were transporting bone-in beef it made the beef arrive cleaner at the other end and it always presented the meat better; it is a presentation in as much as what we did it for in the early days. We obviously did not take it out as clean as we [do] today now. ³¹

2.51 Conflicting evidence was received by the Inquiry as to whether or not the spinal cord could easily be removed intact. Mr Christopher Clark, from the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), described the process in oral evidence:

[First] of all legislation requires carcasses to be split. Following splitting and final trimming of the carcass, ie neck trim, spinal cord, thymus and surplus fat, then the spinal processes would be washed to remove bone dust. It is best practice to wash in a downward direction with emphasis on water volume as opposed to pressure. There is a requirement to control this waste water. It is usual for the station where the splitting takes place to be screened to contribute to the control of that waste water, and also for health and safety reasons.

The spinal cord, in my opinion, remains intact after sawing. Many saws have a continuous flow; they are high speed saws. The water from that saw is then directed by means of a pipe into a receptacle or directly into a trapped drain with fine mesh. I think most plants would exercise these controls. As I have said I do not think there is maceration of the spinal cord. ³²

2.52 Other evidence received indicated that removing the entire spinal cord was not so easy. For example:

When you split a carcass, if you get it right down the mid-line, it is easy to remove the spinal cord but if you go slightly off centre, a piece of the spinal cord is trapped in the canal and is difficult to remove, and it is then quite a business to have to take the carcass back and either split open the canal with an axe or take it back to the saw, and this slows down the line and slows down production and so on. So if you are enforcing your order rigorously you have to make sure that that is done, whereas I think the feedback that was coming through at that time was that, you know, if that happens then nobody would have been particularly bothered about it. That side of beef would have gone through with that little piece of spinal cord still left in the vertebral column. ³³

There were certainly cases where it was difficult [to remove the spinal cord intact]. It relied on the quality of the saw, the expertise of the operator of the saw and very often it would come off in two or three pieces or . . . the meat inspector had to take additional bits of spinal cord out prior to stamping. ³⁴

During the carcass-splitting a mechanical splitting saw travels down the spinal axis of the suspended carcass. Whilst the spinal cord may be 'pushed aside' by the blade of the saw, thus remaining generally complete, this is not usually the case. The spinal cord is usually severed, on occasions along its length, spreading cord tissue along the whole cut surface of the split carcass. The result is that both the carcass, the saw blade and the environment are contaminated, again potentially with the infective agent of BSE. As with the removal of the brain . . . washing of the cut surfaces merely acts to spread the contamination. ³⁵

. . . in smaller abattoirs, where either because the equipment was less well maintained or was less modern and because perhaps operatives in some cases were less skilled . . . it was possible for the saw to deviate off the mid-line, so that it would not expose the actual foramen through the spinal column, the hole where the spinal cord runs. So if the saw deviated there would be a section where the spinal cord would be not visible at that point. So, of course, removal at that point was not done. ³⁶

2.53 From this evidence, it appears that there were practical problems with both approaches to carcass-splitting: an accurate mid-line cut allowed clean removal of the spinal cord but could spread cord tissue along the saw and carcass; an off-centre cut would mean less contamination but left pieces of cord trapped in the canal.

2.54 Even when the entire spinal cord was removed intact, other nervous tissue was still left in the carcass. This included dorsal root ganglia, which were 'swellings on the dorsal roots of spinal nerves [containing] the cell bodies of sensory neurons'. ³⁷

2.55 The carcasses of young calves were not split. ³⁸ Under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1981, export slaughterhouses were only required to split carcasses of bovines over 3 months old. ³⁹ Later, this requirement was changed so that only carcasses of bovines over 6 months old had to be split. ⁴⁰

2.56 This was the third post-mortem inspection point, where the dressed carcass was checked for such things as cleanliness and odour (see below for more information).

(xiii) Removal of thymus

2.57 The thymus is situated in the upper portion of the thoracic cavity. Its function is the development of certain immune responses and antibodies in early life and the processing of lymphocytes. The thymus decreases in size as the animal grows, so that in adult cattle only traces of the thymus remain near the neck and the heart. The part of the thymus near the heart was cut out during the evisceration process, while the neck thymus was removed later, after the carcass was split, but before the inspection referred to in the previous paragraph.

(xiv) Washing the carcass

2.58 Water was used throughout the butchery process, to remove faeces, blood, bone dust and associated detritus.

(xv) Inspection

2.59 In both domestic and export slaughterhouses every carcass slaughtered had to be subjected to inspection by a qualified inspector to establish the fitness for human consumption of all, or part, of the carcass. The criteria for determining fitness were essentially the same in domestic and export-approved plants and depended on establishing the absence of bruising, bleeding or symptoms of proscribed diseases or conditions in the animals being inspected. Meat deemed fit would then be stamped indicating its fitness, the date and place of inspection, and the person responsible for it. There were a series of inspection points during the slaughtering process.

2.60 Before 1 January 1993, the level of inspection for domestic slaughterhouses was different from that for slaughterhouses approved to export meat to other countries - as outlined in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 above. This is explained in more detail in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health, which also sets out who was responsible for carrying out inspections.

2.61 There were differences in standards of practice between the domestic and export-approved slaughterhouses. Mr Charles Capstick of MAFF said in oral evidence:

I began to appreciate when one was seeing the reports, and of course in discussion with my colleagues, that the standards in the domestically-approved slaughterhouses were generally less than in the export-approved.

It was totally irrational. How could we in the Food Safety Directorate defend the situation where in effect the inspection systems . . . were better for meat which was destined for foreigners than that destined for UK citizens? How could you defend that? It is impossible.

There were different types of problem. There were problems of what I would call the quality of the inspections by the meat inspectors, the frequency of their attendance. And there were what we call structural differences, the structure of a slaughterhouse, whether it was free of pests and vermin and so forth. ⁴¹

2.62 Mr Iain Crawford, Director of MAFF's Veterinary Field Service, said in oral evidence:

It was well recognised that the standards were poor. We had two categories of slaughterhouse in the early 1990s: export-approved and domestic. The export-approved had to come up to [EC] Directive requirements, had better supervision, and was of a higher standard than the domestic slaughterhouse. But many of the domestic slaughterhouses had major problems. These were well known. ⁴²

2.63 The number of Authorised Meat Inspectors (AMIs) present also varied with the size of the slaughterhouse in question. Mr Christopher Clark, an AMI, said in oral evidence:

. . . at the smaller abattoirs there was no meat inspector based there during the time of killing, whereas there is now. You possibly would not have seen actually what went on. What would happen in those small abattoirs, the meat inspector would be placed in a large plant and he would go to the smaller abattoirs at the end of his working day and just inspect. ⁴³

Ante-mortem inspection

2.64 Before January 1991, there was no requirement for ante-mortem inspection in slaughterhouses in England, Wales or Northern Ireland that were slaughtering animals only for the domestic market. In Scotland ante-mortem inspection was required both for cattle whose meat was exported and for those whose meat was sold domestically. ⁴⁴ In non-EC-approved Scottish slaughterhouses, this inspection was normally carried out by a lay meat inspector with a statutory meat inspection qualification. ⁴⁵

2.65 During ante-mortem inspection, the inspector looked for symptoms of any disease which could be transmitted to humans or animals, or which would otherwise render the meat unfit. No animal appearing to suffer from such a disease could be slaughtered for human consumption. Any animal that was injured, fatigued or stressed had to be rested for at least 24 hours and inspected again before it could be slaughtered. ⁴⁶

Post-mortem inspection

2.66 The main purpose of post-mortem inspection was to detect and eliminate abnormalities, including contamination, thus ensuring that only meat fit for human consumption was passed for food. The basis on which fitness for human consumption was determined is described in detail in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health. Routine post-mortem inspection determined the character and extent of disease lesions, differentiating between localised and generalised conditions (the former being less important) and between acute, subacute and chronic conditions. ⁴⁷

2.67 All parts of the carcass in which any lesion was found, or any other condition or adulteration suspected, were retained for further inspection and labelled accordingly until the final (third) inspection was completed. Identification of all severed parts of the carcass was maintained in case it was condemned. ⁴⁸ If the carcass was deemed fit, it was marked with a stamp applied by the meat inspector. ⁴⁹ It was then moved on for weighing and tagging.

First post-mortem inspection

2.68 Inspection of the head in both domestic and export-approved slaughterhouses consisted of an examination of the tongue, eyes, lymph glands and the inside of the mouth. In export-approved slaughterhouses, the throat was also examined and the tonsils had to be inspected and removed. ⁵⁰

Second post-mortem inspection

2.69 After evisceration, the internal organs were examined at an inspection table. In export-approved slaughterhouses, additional organs such as the trachea, oesophagus, diaphragm and further parts of the alimentary tract were inspected, and the examinations were generally more detailed. In both types of slaughterhouse, the inspection involved a combination of visual examination, palpation (examination by touch) and incision of the various organs.

2.70 However, the inspection system did not always operate flawlessly. Dr William Swann, a veterinarian with the Meat Hygiene Service, told the Inquiry:

The spleen is something that should be inspected; it was not an uncommon finding to find that the spleens and intestines were disappearing off down to the gut room . . . It is very difficult, in some cases, to actually find out where it was going and what was happening to it. ⁵¹

Third post-mortem inspection

2.71 In both domestic and export-approved slaughterhouses, the dressed carcass was examined for such things as the state of nutrition of the animal, efficiency of bleeding, colour, cleanliness, odours, evidence of bruising or haemorrhage, and any other abnormalities.

2.72 When asked what might cause a carcass to be condemned as unfit, Mr David Taylor, a MAFF veterinarian, said in oral evidence:

It can be a variety of things. It might be simple bruising of the carcass. It might be a disease condition of the liver, such as liver fluke. It might be any parasitic infection of the carcass or indeed the offal itself. As I said, the requirement was that they were removed, put into a bin, and if they were going to be stained, they were stained black . . .

There would be occasions when the whole carcass and its offal would be condemned, the whole thing would be condemned. In many cases, in some cases, the meat that was left was judged as fit for human consumption by the Authorised Meat Inspector, whose responsibility it was to enforce it. ⁵²

(xvi) Gut room operation

2.73 Slaughterhouses were obliged to maintain a separate facility, away from the slaughter hall and hanging space (considered to be 'clean' areas), for the opening of stomachs and intestines (operations likely to cause contamination of clean meat). ⁵³ This facility was known as the 'gut room'. As noted above, any offal not to be sold separately by the slaughterhouse operator was sent via a chute or other means to the gut room, where it was sorted and the abdominal mass separated into its constituent parts. How the gut room was operated varied between slaughterhouses. Sometimes the operation was carried out by a specialist gut room contractor, which would buy the abdominal mass from the slaughterer, and employ its own staff to sort it. ⁵⁴ Mr Peter Carrigan of Specialpack Ltd said in oral evidence that, in the case of his company:

We equip the gut room, we provide the staff, laundry services, etc, and from the slaughterer opening the animal to allow the viscera to fall out, that is the last they see of it. ⁵⁵

2.74 Organs which had valuable uses were separated: for example, the pancreas, which was used to make insulin; the intestines, which were occasionally used for sausage casings ⁵⁶ and sutures; and the stomach, which was cleaned and used for tripe, pet food or cheese manufacture. Higher quality fat was removed and sent separately to renderers. The rest of the organs were also sent, as waste, to renderers. ⁵⁷

2.75 The contents of the stomachs and intestines were also removed in the gut room before the offal was transferred to renderers. As one renderer pointed out, however, this was not a precise process:

Whether offal contents are present or removed, even if they are removed, the large stomach contents would be removed but perhaps the intestinal contents in many cases would not be, never have been. Even if they were removed, they are not removed with absolute hygiene and cleanliness. ⁵⁸

2.76 A report to the Chief Veterinary Officer at MAFF by Mr Raymond Bradley of the CVL on a visit to a casings factory describes the procedure for making casings from intestines as follows:

RUNNER STRIPPER

The Cow Mate (the intestinal tract from duodenum to rectum inclusive) enters the gut room from the slaughter hall with the tripe organs . . . The mate is draped over the edge of the gut tray with the middle to the right and midrum to the left. Commencing at the liver (duodenum) end the runner is stripped from the midrum using a sharp knife . . . The midrum with its prominent content of mesenteric lymph node . . . is sent for rendering.

DEMANURING

[This] machine . . . squeezes out manure and crushes the runner.

DEFATTER

[This] machine . . . crushes and removes fat to a hot water bath.

MUCOSA STRIPPER

[This] machine . . . crushes the mucosa.

TURNING TANK

The runner is turned inside out so the mucosal surface is outside.

DESLIMER

[This] machine strips off the mucosa . . . The casing is passed through this machine twice in the standard process . . . and sometimes thrice.

HANKING

Five half runners are tied at their midpoint to form a hank.

SALTING

Hanks are thoroughly salted in a tray . . . then placed in salt in barrels where they remain for at least three weeks before filling. ⁵⁹

(xvii) Weighing and tagging the carcass

2.77 Once the carcass was dressed and passed as fit for human consumption, it was weighed and then graded for EU subsidy purposes by a fatstock inspector from the MLC, according to the amount of fat and quality of the meat. The grading was recorded on an identification tag attached to each quarter. The carcass was then sent to the chiller for chilling or freezing.

(xviii) Waste disposal

2.78 Slaughterhouses were required to dispose of animal by-products within 48 hours of slaughter. ⁶⁰ All meat and offal unfit for human consumption had to be disposed of in accordance with the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982. ⁶¹

2.79 The principal destination for this material was rendering plants. Their operation is described in Chapter 6 below, and the regulatory framework is examined in more detail in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Animal and Human Health.

2.80 Some slaughterhouses disposed of blood by spraying it on fields as a fertiliser:

The use of unprocessed blood in this way must be subject to the agreement of the local authority responsible for the abattoir and the licensing of the recipient farm under the Control of Pollution Act. Legislative controls on this activity also exist in relation to animal health. These are contained in the Waste Food Order 1973. This prohibits livestock from access to unprocessed waste food, which includes blood. To comply with this requirement farmers must not allow livestock or poultry access to fields on which blood has been spread until sufficient time has elapsed so that none remains on the herbage or ground surface. ⁶²

2.81 Slaughterhouses and other meat processing plants used large amounts of water during their operations. This waste water was generally filtered to remove any solid material. For instance, fat traps fitted on drains permitted the fat to be removed periodically and sent for rendering. The water could then be treated in an effluent plant and disposed of into the sewerage system. However, this disposal would have to comply with any relevant consents granted to the local water authority. The pollution control and waste disposal system is described in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health.

(xix) Unfit meat disposal

2.82 Any unfit meat or offal 'was taken from the carcass, put into a bin, and either sterilised on site, or stained, and removed for sterilisation, with the exception of green offal, which need not be stained'. ⁶³ Mr Peter Carrigan referred in oral evidence to a 'detained area' to which unfit material was sent. ⁶⁴

2.83 The evidence is not clear as to precisely what volume of unfit material was produced in slaughterhouses. Mr Iain Crawford of MAFF said in oral evidence that there was 'a lot of unfit meat'. ⁶⁵ However, this did not necessarily constitute a large proportion of the total material produced in slaughterhouses. For instance, Mr Paul Foxcroft of Prosper De Mulder Ltd (PDM) estimated that between 10 and 15 per cent of material which was rendered was:

. . . derived from animals which have not made it through their growth period, died on farm from things like milk fever, grass staggers, or whatever, or being condemned on arrival at the abattoir on ante-mortem inspection, or being condemned after slaughtering as unfit for human consumption. ⁶⁶

2.84 Unfit meat and offal had to be handled and disposed of in accordance with the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982. ⁶⁷ A full account of the requirements of these Regulations is in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health. But, in brief, they required that unfit material be sterilised or stained, except in certain defined circumstances.

2.85 In practice, most unfit material was sent to renderers. Slaughterhouses rarely chose to sterilise unfit material. ⁶⁸ They preferred to stain it. The staining was done either by the slaughterhouse workers, or by the local authority meat inspector. ⁶⁹ Even so, because most unfit material did not have to be stained if it was going directly to renderers, the majority of unfit material received by renderers was unstained. ⁷⁰