Volume 13: Industry Processes and Controls
2. The slaughtering industry
The effect of BSE-related Regulations on slaughterhouse practice
Lairage and ante-mortem inspection
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988, including the ruminant feed ban (RFB)
Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 (the 1989 SBO Regulations)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Amendment Order 1990 (the 1990 BSE Order)
Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (the 1992 Regulations)
Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1994
Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995
Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 (the 1995 SBO Order)

2.86 In order to comply with the successive Regulations dealing with Specified Bovine Offal (SBO), which were introduced as a result of the BSE epidemic, the slaughterhouse had to remove the SBO from the carcass, separate it from material fit for human consumption and dispose of it according to the Regulations. We shall consider each Regulation and explain its impact on slaughterhouses.

2.87 Some of the following paragraphs set out evidence that the Inquiry received from individuals about changes in slaughterhouse practice introduced in an attempt to comply with the Regulations. It is not possible to establish with certainty how many slaughterhouses adopted a particular change of practice, and when. This reflects the fact that slaughterhouse operators and local authorities were generally left to determine for themselves how to meet the requirements of the Regulations.

Lairage and ante-mortem inspection

2.88 BSE was made a notifiable disease from 21 June 1988 pursuant to the BSE Order 1988. ¹ If the slaughterhouse operator, or any of its staff, suspected that a cow there was infected with BSE, they had to detain the cow and notify the Divisional Veterinary Officer. Inspection in the lairage therefore also became a check to prevent animals showing symptoms of BSE from entering the human food chain.

2.89 On 8 August 1988, animals suffering from BSE became subject to compulsory slaughter and destruction under section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981. ² If cattle were diagnosed at the slaughterhouse as suffering from BSE, they had to be slaughtered at a different time or in a different place from other animals. ³

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988, including the ruminant feed ban (RFB)

2.90 The RFB prohibited the sale or supply for feeding to ruminant animals of any feedstuff containing any ruminant-derived animal protein in England, Scotland and Wales. ⁴ The ban was originally to have effect only until 1 January 1989, but was later extended, first for another year and then indefinitely. ⁵ An RFB did not come into force in Northern Ireland until January 1989. ⁶

2.91 It was still open to animal food manufacturers to incorporate other animal protein, such as that from pigs and poultry, into ruminant feed. It would have been lawful to have manufactured non-ruminant derived MBM and feed this to ruminants. In order for renderers to do this, slaughterhouses would have had to separate ruminant material from all other material, such as porcine, before sending it to renderers. However, non-ruminant MBM was never manufactured. The Order therefore did not have any effect on the slaughterhouse process.

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

2.92 The 1989 SBO Regulations were made under the Food Act 1984 and came into force on 13 November 1989. ⁷ For detailed discussion of the introduction of this legislation, see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96.

2.93 The purpose of the legislation was to prohibit the sale and use of SBO in the preparation of food for human consumption. SBO was defined as the brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestines of an animal over 6 months of age. ⁸

2.94 Mr Iain Crawford of MAFF said in oral evidence that:

. . . with cattle slaughtered, the weight of SBO is not standard. The weight varies from animal to animal, depending on the size of the animal, what it has been fed on, etc, whether the intestines are emptied or full. ⁹

2.95 According to estimates compiled by the authors of the Leatherhead Report, the average weight of a live cow is 536.57 kg. ¹⁰ They used this figure as a starting-point to arrive at an estimate of the average total weight of SBO as 17 kg, or 3.2 per cent of the live cow. They also reported that the whole bovine head (excluding the tongue), which became 'specified bovine material' under the Specified Bovine Material Order 1996, ¹¹ weighed 12 kg on average.

2.96 In 1990, the first full year after the introduction of the 1989 SBO Regulations, approximately 3.48 million cattle (excluding calves) were slaughtered in UK abattoirs. On this basis, it is estimated that slaughterhouses produced and sent to renderers about 59,000 tonnes of SBO in 1990. In 1995, the last full year of the period to be covered by this Inquiry, the number of cattle slaughtered was approximately 3.27 million. ¹² Using the same basis for estimation, in that year, UK slaughterhouses would have produced 55,500 tonnes of SBO. (This figure does not include heads.)

Figure 2.5: Specified Bovine Offal for the purposes of the human SBO ban 1989 (Bovines 6 months plus)

Removal of SBO from the carcass

2.97 The Regulations were silent on how to remove SBO from carcasses.

Separation and storage of SBO

2.98 Storage was governed by a specific regulation which applied to SBO once it had been severed from excluded matter (ie, parts of the carcass which did not consist of or contain SBO) which was fit for human consumption. Meat fit for human consumption could not be stored in the same room as such SBO, unless the latter had been stained or sterilised and was stored in such a way that it was at all times separated from the meat fit for human consumption. It also required that SBO should not be stored unless the container, wrapper or other packaging used to hold it bore a notice setting out certain statements. ¹³ The Regulations did not require the separation of SBO material from other material which, while unfit for human consumption, might be fit for animals.

Staining, sterilising and disposal of SBO

2.99 In broad terms the effect of the 1989 SBO Regulations was as follows:

• slaughterhouses were required either to sterilise or to stain SBO immediately;
• SBO could not be taken from the slaughterhouse unless it was:
  
  
  1. sterilised. This was done rarely by slaughterhouses; ¹⁴
  2. stained and sent to a processor (eg, renderer) under a local authority movement order; or
  3. sent to 'excepted premises' under a local authority movement order, in which case it did not have to be stained or sterilised. Among the 'excepted premises' were hospitals, medical and veterinary schools, 'manufacturing chemists' and 'premises used for the manufacture of products other than food and not used for the manufacture of food'.

2.100 For further details about the introduction, requirements, monitoring and enforcement of this legislation, see vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96 and vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96.

Transportation of SBO

2.101 The Regulations provided that SBO material had to removed in a vehicle, or in an impervious container, which was kept locked and sealed at all times and which bore a notice to the effect that the SBO carried therein was not for human consumption. ¹⁵ Actual practice varied between slaughterhouses. Mr Andrew Fleetwood of MAFF said in oral evidence:

The smaller abattoirs would put the SBO in larger 80 gallon drums and the lorry that arrived would look like a rigid container lorry containing a large quantity of rigid drums. Some of the larger slaughterhouses operate skips, the sort of skips you can have delivered to your house to put your garden rubbish in, sheetable, obviously, to ensure no leakage. And the very largest slaughterhouses would have dedicated vehicles. ¹⁶

Stunning

2.102 The 1989 SBO Regulations made no specific provision as to methods of stunning. It came to be appreciated that, when a captive bolt was used in stunning (and this was the most common method), brain matter and cerebrospinal fluid might leak out of the resulting hole. This might lead to contamination of other parts of the carcass, such as the cheek meat. ¹⁷

2.103 Mr Colin Maclean, Director-General of the MLC, said in oral evidence that, starting in late 1995, the MLC had developed:

. . . bungs to block the captive bolt hole in the head of the animal to prevent brain tissue and cerebral spinal fluid leaking when the animal is hanging up, this can leak also into the blood being drained from the animal at that time. Therefore if there was a way of preventing that, that could add value to the industry. We developed a degradable bung which could be put into that hole. ¹⁸

It is not known how many slaughterhouses were using these bungs. There was no requirement to use them.

Pithing

2.104 The 1989 SBO Regulations placed no restriction on pithing. The traditional coiled spring pithing rod regularly collected a build-up of brain matter. The accumulated brain matter could be spread to the slaughterer, or another animal if the rod was reused, or be sprayed onto the floor when the rod was hosed down.

2.105 In oral evidence, Ms Marja-Liisa Hovi, an Official Veterinary Surgeon, discussed the unhygienic pithing in one slaughterhouse:

There was quite a risk of cross-contamination from animal to animal, because the pithing rod was not sterilised or washed in any way; it was kept between the hot water pipes on the wall which was next to the man doing the pithing . . . I think by the time I left after four weeks there was a sterilisation system being put in at the time for the pithing rod system, since I was quite insistent on that. ¹⁹

2.106 Mr Richard Lodge, Head of Food Health and Safety at Birmingham City Council, said in oral evidence that the traditional metal spiral rod 'really could not be adequately cleaned or sterilised between uses'. ²⁰ The material used has since changed to easily cleaned smooth plastics, such as polypropylene. ²¹

2.107 In recent years, pithing has been increasingly criticised by commentators such as Dr Joseph Gracey ²² and Sir Mark Richmond, ²³ who viewed it as an unnecessary process, and potentially dangerous. The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (the Richmond Committee) stated in its second report, published in 1991:

Where pithing is carried out in conjunction with captive bolt stunningto control post-stunning convulsions, this represents a significant microbiological risk, since blood is still pumping around the carcass and can carry to all parts of the body any micro-organisms introduced. ²⁴

2.108 Although some slaughterers continued to use pithing rods, the exact extent of their use by 20 March 1996 is not clear.

Removal of head, tonsils and tongue

2.109 Under the 1989 SBO Regulations the brain became specified bovine offal, but they made no specific requirements as to how the head should be removed or dealt with. Subsequent developments in practice and legislation did dramatically affect the handling of the head and head meat; these are discussed in Chapter 3.

2.110 The tonsils were made an SBO under the 1989 Regulations. They had to be removed from the heads of all slaughtered cattle, not just those slaughtered in export slaughterhouses, where tonsil removal was already required by the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1981. ²⁵ Domestic plants therefore had to undertake the removal of tonsils for the first time.

2.111 The tongue has always been excluded from the definition of SBO. Slaughterhouses still often choose to remove the tongue for meat before disposing of the head.

Evisceration

2.112 The evisceration process includes the removal from the carcass of the intestines and spleen, both of which were made SBO under the 1989 Regulations.

2.113 The intestines continued to go to the gut room, where they were separated from the rest of the abdominal mass and collected in SBO bins. In slaughterhouses in which the spleen was always sent to the gut room, separation continued to occur there. There is evidence that in other slaughterhouses the spleen was separated directly after the evisceration process and collected in separate bins. ²⁶

2.114 Slaughterhouses also introduced separate bins for SBO at the site of the evisceration, in response to the requirement that SBO had to be stored in separate containers. It is apparent from oral evidence that most slaughterhouses did start using separate bins. ²⁷ However, the Inquiry was unable to determine how well this worked in practice. By way of example, Mr Keith Burgess, an Official Veterinary Surgeon, told the Inquiry that:

In the morning there would be some separate containers, coloured sometimes, occasionally they were marked, and we used to kill in excess sometimes of 300 cattle a day. By the end of the day, because I had to leave by about 2 o'clock, things gradually started to deteriorate and the actual separation between the bins would be less obvious than it was earlier on, the level of waste material would build up in the abattoir. It was a question of the person cutting it off and throwing it into the bin. Occasionally they miss. Unless you are actually there watching it constantly you could not be sure it was being done absolutely correctly. But there were attempts made to separate it, but in practical terms it is actually quite difficult to do unless the line speed is such and there are enough operatives there that it can be done properly. It was adequate, but I would not say it was foolproof. ²⁸

2.115 Mr Ron Spellman, a local authority meat inspector, said that the disposal of SBO into the correct bin (that is, not the bin for unfit meat) 'would have been a thing that inspectors would have taken note of'. ²⁹

Carcass-splitting and removal of spinal cord

2.116 Spinal cord was made an SBO under the 1989 Regulations. The legislation did not expressly regulate carcass-splitting and removal of the spinal cord. However, some investigations were made into ways to reduce contamination of the carcass by the spinal cord. These led to attempts to create a double-bladed saw which could cut around the spinal column on both sides. Dr Gracey said in oral evidence:

What they have been trying to do with the . . . carcass-splitting saws is to have a double-bladed effort which not just removes the spinal cord but takes out the whole column. ³⁰

2.117 One of the driving forces behind the attempts to perfect new methods of spinal cord removal was commercial pressure from the supermarkets, which were major buyers of fresh meat. Mr Colin Maclean, Director-General of the MLC, said that:

. . . some of the supermarkets became concerned about the spray caused by sagittal splitting of carcasses with saws that clearly sprayed spinal cord fragments on to the spinal column particularly, but perhaps also on to other parts of the carcass. And therefore for a presentational reason, because at that stage we did not believe that that was any major threat we started the work. Well, we did not believe it was a threat at all, I think is the honest answer at that stage.

But to deal with the perceived concern, we started work on sucking devices to try to suck the spinal cord out of the column without sagittally cutting the carcass. We spent a lot of time in our own workshops because we have a cutting plant and cutting rooms in our own offices where we can do that sort of work. And we spent about a year and a half trying to achieve removal of the spinal cord in a way that could meet the line speeds of the abattoir, obviously. It is not just a matter of getting it out, it has to meet the commercial needs of the industry.

We did not succeed at that time. Therefore we stopped that work not because the problem had gone away but because the supermarkets had retreated from their area of concern as more knowledge had been disseminated in the industry the concern associated with the sawing of carcasses had receded throughout the industry. It remained so until probably 1994/95, when the challenge returned again. Despite our failure with that sucking device we kept the equipment and so on and so forth but retreated from the research. ³¹

2.118 Other theoretical ways of removing the spinal cord completely which were mooted in the early 1990s included blowing out the cord from the intact carcass and cutting with lasers. These were found not to be commercially viable at the time. ³²

2.119 It was already common practice in 1989 to remove the spinal cord from the vertebral column of adult cattle so as to improve the appearance of the meat, but after the introduction of the 1989 SBO Regulations, the spinal cord was dropped into a bin for staining. ³³ Problems with removing it intact (see above, and paragraphs 2.48ff) are also considered in vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96.

Removal of thymus

2.120 The thymus was already removed from the carcass before 1986. Therefore, the only additional requirement of the 1989 SBO Regulations was that it was now thrown into the SBO bin and handled in the same manner as all SBO, as described above.

Gut room operation

2.121 Specific training for gut room staff was provided by some operators to ensure the abdominal mass was dissected into its various, significant parts. ³⁴ The parts which were now SBO (intestines and, in those slaughterhouses where it was not separated at the slaughter line, the spleen) had to be carefully separated from the other offal, and stored and disposed of separately from meat going for human consumption and from any other offal. The use of intestines from the UK in the manufacture of sutures, although not unlawful, stopped after the 1989 SBO ban. ³⁵

Post-mortem inspection

2.122 The 1989 SBO Regulations did not lead to the introduction of additional inspection points in the slaughter line. However, District and Borough Councils were made statutorily responsible for enforcing the SBO ban within their jurisdictions. ³⁶ We will return again briefly to post-mortem inspections below.

Staining and disposal of SBO

2.123 It can be seen from the processes described above that the offal defined as SBO was removed from the carcass at different stages of the process. Yet removal was only the first step in dealing with it. Tonsils, spinal cord, brain (when removed) and thymus should have been placed in separate bins by the workers on the slaughter line. Similarly, in the gut room, the intestines and spleen (assuming it went to the gut room) should have been placed in separate bins too. The brain was usually sent on to head boners within an intact skull which, under the Regulations, had to be stained at the head boners. ³⁷

2.124 SBO was pooled in a skip or other container for disposal to renderers, and generally stained periodically by hosing down with dye. After staining, it was removed to a vehicle and transported (usually by an employee of a renderer) pursuant to a local authority movement order, either to a renderer's collection centre or directly to a rendering plant. At collection centres, small quantities of individual types of material could be consolidated before being sent on to the rendering plant. The subsequent reduction in transport costs was only possible, however, when the volume of waste material was high, and Prosper De Mulder in England and Wales, and William Forrest & Son in Scotland, were the only renderers that operated in this way. ³⁸

2.125 SBO could still legally be used in animal feed, up until the introduction of the animal SBO ban in 1990 (see below). However, in response to the introduction of the SBO ban for human food, on 9 November 1989 members of the compound animal feed industry adopted a voluntary ban on the inclusion of SBO in all animal feed. ³⁹ This meant that, in turn, most renderers insisted that slaughterhouses provide them with SBO separately from material that was free of SBO. ⁴⁰

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

2.126 The 1990 BSE Order, made under the Animal Health Act 1981, introduced a compulsory ban in England, Scotland and Wales on the inclusion of SBO in feedstuffs for all animals. ⁴¹ As SBO could no longer be used in any human or animal food, it had very few permitted uses. In practice therefore it had little value.

2.127 The implications of this ban and its monitoring and enforcement, along with the voluntary ban which preceded it, are discussed in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96.

*

*

*

2.128 From time to time the 1989 Regulations (the human SBO ban) and the 1990 Order (the animal SBO ban) were amended. Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96 and vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96 describe and discuss these amendments. Here we outline the main provisions which affected slaughterhouse operations.

Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (the 1992 Regulations)

2.129 The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 came into force in England and Wales on 12 March 1992 under the Food Act 1984, amending the 1989 Regulations. ⁴² They addressed two main areas: the definition of 'excepted premises', and the handling of bovine heads. The definition of 'excepted premises', to which SBO could be sent without staining or sterilisation now excluded the manufacturers of animal feedstuffs. This measure implemented domestically Commission Decision 90/200/EC. ⁴³

2.130 The definition also now no longer expressly included 'manufacturing chemists'. However, as manufacturers of non-food products they still fell within the general definition of excepted premises.

2.131 These Regulations also prohibited the removal of any meat for human consumption from the head of a bovine animal after the skull had been opened or the brain had been removed. ⁴⁴ A practice had developed of splitting the skull and removing the brain before sending the head to head boners. Now, the cheek meat could not be harvested if the skull had been split. Splitting of the skull is considered in detail in Chapter 3.

Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1994

2.132 On 30 June 1994 the Government announced the preliminary results of an experiment to investigate the biological routes through which BSE developed in cattle. These showed that evidence of BSE infectivity had been found in the distal ileum (part of the intestines) of a calf aged 4 months. Following assessment of these results by SEAC and the Chief Medical Officer, it was decided to extend the definition of SBO to include most calf intestines. ⁴⁵ Further amendments were made to the 1989 SBO Regulations on 2 November 1994, under the Food Act 1984. ⁴⁶ The definition of SBO was changed, to cover all the following parts of a bovine animal which no longer formed part of the carcass of an animal:

1. the brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestines of an animal over 6 months old, which had died or been slaughtered in the UK; and
2. the thymus and intestines of an animal, between 2 months and 6 months old, which had died or been slaughtered in the UK; and
3. the thymus and intestines of an animal, under 2 months of age, which had been slaughtered in the UK.

Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995

2.133 The principal change brought in by these Regulations concerned staining practice. ⁴⁷ Previously, staining had to be carried out using a solution of the colouring agent Black PN or Brilliant Black BN, which was also to be used generally for meat unfit for human consumption. After April 1995, the colouring agent Patent Blue V had to be used for SBO, at a concentration of 0.5 per cent. The stain had to cover the whole surface of the SBO.

2.134 The intention was that this would distinguish SBO from other unfit meat and ensure they were kept separate at all times. It helped slaughterhouse staff to differentiate between SBO and other unfit meat, and degraded more slowly than the black stains used previously, which sometimes faded after as little as 48 hours. There was, however, some evidence that the new blue stain was not always being used as prescribed. Mr Peter Soul of the Meat Hygiene Service said that:

. . . we were getting some good information . . . about the lack of staining with the new blue stain.

. . . at the same time, we were getting information that premises wanted to use up their supplies of black stain, for example. So there would have been concerns there that the risk of intermingling, mixing of SBO and other animal by-products would have continued to be greater than it should have been.

[The new blue stain was] much more expensive, so there was quite a lot of reluctance, I think, on the part of plant operators, to purchase it. ⁴⁸

Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 (the 1995 SBO Order)

2.135 The 1995 SBO Order ⁴⁹ came into force in Great Britain on 15 August 1995 under the Animal Health Act 1981, and consolidated and rationalised the existing legislation. The definition of SBO was largely retained, but extended to cover anything left attached to an SBO organ after dissection of the carcass, and any animal matter which came into contact with the organ after it had been removed from the carcass (not including a whole carcass). ⁵⁰

2.136 Staining with Patent Blue V became the only acceptable method of treating SBO. Sterilisation ceased to be an option. Once treated, SBO was to be consigned to one of a number of premises for disposal or further treatment. All such destinations now needed Ministry approval.

2.137 This was also the first SBO Order to expressly require that, when an animal was slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, the slaughterhouse operator had to ensure that all SBO was removed from the carcass. ⁵¹

2.138 Brain and eyes could no longer be removed from the head, with certain limited exceptions; and spinal cord could only be removed in a slaughterhouse, again with certain limited exceptions.