Volume 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health
3. Red meat hygiene at the slaughterhouse
Annex to Chapter 3: The treatment of meat found to be unfit for human consumption
Requirements on movement
Enforcement
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) criticisms of the system
Meat (Sterilisation and Staining)(Amendment) Regulations 1984

Requirements on movement

3.164 The 1982 Regulations imposed requirements on destinations and mode of transport, limiting what could be done at such destinations, and imposing (with exceptions) a scheme of movement permits. These are described below.

3.165 Meat unfit, or not intended, for human consumption, or knacker meat, could be removed, in accordance with any movement permit required by the Regulations to be issued in respect of that movement, to one of the destinations identified in Regulation 17(1). These are listed in paragraph 3.134 above.

3.166 Meat removed to a destination referred to in Regulation17(1)(b) to (e) was required to be removed in a vehicle or impervious container which:

1. was kept closed and locked or sealed at all times except when necessary for the loading or unloading of the contents or their examination by an authorised officer; and
2. bore a notice of adequate size which was conspicuously visible and contained a distinct legible and unambiguous statement to the effect that the meat carried therein was not for human consumption. ¹

3.167 Once meat unfit, or not intended, for human consumption, or knacker meat, had reached any of the premises referred to in Regulation 17(1)(a) to (e) it could not be further removed from those premises unless that meat:

1. had been sterilised; or
2. was removed from the premises referred to in Regulation 17(1)(e), and was intended to be delivered to another destination listed in Regulation 17(1)(a) to (e) and its removal to that destination was authorised by a movement permit issued pursuant to the Regulations; or
3. could not be disposed of at those premises by reason of permanent or temporary closure of the premises or breakdown of machinery or a trade dispute, and was removed in accordance with an arrangement in writing with, and under the supervision of, an authorised officer of the local authority in whose district those premises were situated, to another destination referred to in Regulation 17(1)(a) to (d) or a place where it was buried or destroyed. ²

3.168 Regulation 19 set out the procedure to be followed in those cases where the Regulations required removal of meat from certain premises to take place under the authority of a movement permit. At least two working days before the day on which the unsterilised meat was to be removed from such premises, the occupier of the premises or owner of the meat had to apply to the local authority, giving the following information:

1. the intended removal date;
2. the description of the meat;
3. the address and description of the premises to which the meat was to be delivered; and
4. the expected date of arrival of the meat at those premises. ³

3.169 Upon receipt of an application the local authority was required, without undue delay, to satisfy itself that the premises to which it was intended to deliver the unsterilised meat were of a kind referred to in Regulation 17(1) and were capable of processing or otherwise disposing of the meat. If the premises were situated in the district of another local authority, the authority to whom the application was made was required to notify that other authority that the application had been made, and was required to take into account any information obtained from that authority in reaching its decision on the nature of the premises. ⁴

3.170 When the occupier of any premises, or the owner of any meat, to which the Regulation applied, regularly delivered unsterilised meat of a specific description to a particular destination, the authority in whose district the premises or meat were situated was required - on receiving an application stating the description of that meat and the address and description of its destination - to authorise in advance each such movement by issuing whatever quantity of movement permits it considered appropriate. ⁵

3.171 Movement permits were to be in the form specified in the schedule to the Regulations. The permit was divided into Parts I to V. When satisfied of the matters referred to in Regulation 19(2), ⁶ a local authority was required to complete Part I of the permit and issue to the applicant an original and three copies of the permit. ⁷ Part I was as follows:

3.172 The occupier of the premises from which the unsterilised meat was removed under the authority of a movement permit was required to complete Part II of the document delivered to him and to give the original and two copies to the driver of the vehicle by which the meat was removed and to keep the other copy for two years. ⁸ Part II was as follows:

3.173 When the driver delivered the meat to the premises named in the movement permit, he was required to give that permit to the occupier of those premises. ⁹ The occupier was then required to complete Part III of the permit and to acknowledge receipt of the meat thus delivered to him by signing the original and two copies and was required, within seven days of receiving the meat, to send the original and one copy to the local authority in whose district his premises were situated. ¹⁰ The occupier was required to retain the other copy for two years from the date on which he received that meat. ¹¹ Part III was as follows:

3.174 If the driver was unable to deliver the meat to the premises named in the movement permit, he was required without delay to inform or cause to be informed either the local authority which had issued the permit, or the local authority in whose area the delivery premises were situated. That authority was required without delay to authorise the delivery of the meat to another destination referred to in Regulation 17(1), or, if no such alternative destination was available, require the meat to be returned to the premises from which it had been removed, or to be buried or destroyed under its supervision. The driver was required to hand the movement permit to the occupier of the premises to which the meat was delivered, or, in the case of its burial or destruction, to the supervising authority. ¹²

3.175 The occupier of the premises to which the meat was delivered was required to complete Part IV of the movement permit, acknowledge receipt of the meat to which the permit related by signing the original and its two copies and, within seven days of the receipt of the meat, to send the original and one copy to the local authority in whose district his premises were situated. ¹³ The occupier was required to retain the other copy for two years from the date on which he received the meat to which it related. ¹⁴ Part IV was as follows:

3.176 Any local authority which was sent a movement permit was required to complete Part V of that permit and to send the original to the authority which had issued it and retain the copy for two years. ¹⁵ Part V was as follows:

Any person required to retain a document under Regulation 19 was required to make that document available for inspection by an authorised officer at any reasonable time. ¹⁶

Enforcement

3.177 The local authority was required to enforce and execute the provisions of the Regulations in its district. ¹⁷ The primary means of enforcement was provided by powers conferred upon authorised officers by the Food and Drugs Act 1955. ¹⁸ Section 100(1) of the Act gave an authorised officer of a council a right to enter any premises at all reasonable hours, on producing, if required, authenticated documents showing his authority, for the purpose of:

1. ascertaining whether there was or had been on, or in connection with, the premises any contravention of the Regulations; and
2. performing the functions of the council under the Regulations.

3.178 Admission to a private dwelling house was not to be demanded by right unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry had been given to the occupier.

3.179 If a Justice of the Peace (JP), on sworn information in writing:

1. was satisfied that there was reasonable ground for entry into any premises for any such purpose set out above; and
2. was also satisfied either:
   • that admission to the premises had been refused, or a refusal was apprehended and that notice of the intention to apply for a warrant had been given to the occupier; or
   • that an application for admission, or the giving of such a notice would defeat the object of the entry, or that the case was one of urgency, or that the premises were unoccupied or the occupier was temporarily absent;

the JP had a power by warrant under his hand to authorise any authorised officer to enter the premises, if need be by force. ¹⁹ An authorised officer entering any premises pursuant to either of these provisions had a power to take with him such other persons as might be necessary and, on leaving unoccupied premises which he had entered by virtue of a warrant, was required to leave those premises as effectively secured against trespassers as he found them. ²⁰

3.180 In addition, an authorised officer of a council, on producing, if required, authenticated documents showing his authority, had a right at all reasonable hours to enter any vehicle, stall or place other than premises for any purpose for which he was empowered under section 100. ²¹ In such circumstances, the provisions outlined above in relation to entry to premises applied to any vehicle, stall or place other than premises as if a reference to the occupier referred to the person in charge of the vehicle, stall or place other than premises. ²²

3.181 Under the 1982 Regulations, an authorised officer had, at all reasonable times a power to examine any meat not fit or not intended for human consumption which had been sold, was offered or exposed for sale or was in the possession of, or had been deposited with or consigned to, any person for the purpose of sale or preparation for sale. The authorised officer had a further power to seize the meat and remove it in order for it to be dealt with by a JP, if it appeared to the authorised officer that the meat was required by the Regulations:

1. to be sterilised, but it had not been sterilised;
2. to be stained, but it had not been stained;
3. to bear a notice, but it did not bear a notice; or
4. to be accompanied by a movement permit, but it was not. ²³

3.182 Having seized any meat under this power, the officer was required to inform the person in whose possession the meat was found of his intention to have it dealt with by a JP. ²⁴ Anyone liable for prosecution under the terms of the Regulations was entitled, if he attended before the JP, to be heard and to call witnesses. ²⁵ If the JP considered that the meat brought before him - whether seized under the provisions of this regulation or not - was meat to which the Regulations applied and was required to be, but had not been, dealt with in accordance with those Regulations, he was required to condemn it and order it to be destroyed or to be dealt with under the Regulations. ²⁶ If the JP refused to condemn any such meat, the council was required to compensate the owner of the meat for any depreciation in its value resulting from its seizure and removal. ²⁷

3.183 The Regulations also provided that if an authorised officer had reason to suspect that any vehicle or container contained any meat to which the Regulations applied and which was intended for sale or was in the course of delivery after sale, then he had a power to examine the contents, and, if necessary, detain the vehicle or container. If he found any meat which was required to be but had not been dealt with in accordance with the Regulations, the authorised officer was able to seize the meat and remove it as described above. ²⁸

3.184 Any person contravening or failing to comply with any provision of the Regulations, or knowingly or recklessly making a false statement or declaration in the Regulations for the movement of meat, was guilty of an offence. This rendered him liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both, and, in the case of continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding £5 for each day during which the offence continued after conviction. ²⁹

3.185 All of the above restrictions in the 1982 Regulations were subject to the application of provisions of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 as follows:

1. section 113 provided that a person against whom proceedings were brought was entitled to bring before the court in proceedings any person to whose act or default he alleged that the contravention of the provisions in question was due and seek to prove that the contravention was due to the act or default of that person;
2. section 115(2) imposed restrictions upon the circumstances in which it was possible for it to be a defence in a set of proceedings under the Act that a warranty had been given that any article or substance could be lawfully sold or dealt with under the name or description or for the purpose under or for which it was sold or dealt with;
3. section 116 set out offences of applying to an article or substance a warranty or certificate of analysis given in relation to another article or substance and of giving of a false warranty in writing, and provisions relating to those offences; and
4. section 128 provided that an officer of the council acting in good faith in the execution or purported execution of the Act and within the scope of his employment was not to be held personally liable, and that the council had a power to indemnify the officer against any damages and costs in circumstances where he was not legally entitled to require such an indemnity. ³⁰

3.186 Table 3.3 at the end of this Annex summarises the principal requirements as to sterilisation and removal of unfit meat under the 1982 Regulations.

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) criticisms of the system

3.187 The CIEH was one of the groups at the forefront of the lobbying for legislative change which took place in the wake of 'Operation Meathook'. ³¹ However, while the regime set up by the 1982 Regulations built upon suggestions by the CIEH, these were not adopted in their entirety and the CIEH continued to have serious concerns about the scope and terms of the regime. ³²

3.188 The CIEH evidence to the Inquiry attached the transcript of a talk given by Mr K J Tyler, the CIEH Secretary, at the CIEH Congress in 1982. Mr Tyler had quoted from a letter sent by the CIEH's Meat Legislation Review Group to MAFF on 7 June 1982 commenting upon the draft proposals for the 1982 Regulations:

The Institution raises as a fundamental objection the proposed exclusion of offal and poultry meat from the full requirements of the regulations, and in particular to staining and sterilisation. However, following consultations with various sections of the food trade and the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, the Institution may be prepared to make some concessions in respect of offal. The Institution is adamant that all offal emanating from knacker yards and unfit offal from slaughterhouses should be included within the staining and sterilisation requirements. In relation to imported offal for use by the pet food trade the Institution is prepared to consider foregoing the staining and sterilisation requirements but only if the licensing requirements for this importation are tightened up, i.e. that only bona fide petfood processors of this inedible offal are licensed to import. In other words the Institution would be opposed to a dealer importing this product and then hawking it around the market in the hope of finding a buyer. ³³

3.189 However, a decision was taken to exempt, 'non-specified offal' from the stricter requirements applied to carcass meat and 'specified offal'. ³⁴ Mr Tyler had commented:

We now have three different types of offal: Specified, Green, Any other. Some is stained some is not, some is sterilised some is not, dependent on where it is going. Some whether it is stained, sterilised or not requires a movement permit. I hope that all local authorities understand and interpret the regulations in the same manner or confusion may well reign. Perhaps I am being rather too pessimistic, yes the regulations are complicated and the paperwork which the institution wanted, 'the 'paper' control', but only when the Ministry did not meet our original demands for all meat and offal to be either stained or sterilised and for there to be no exemptions to that rule. Had that been the case no paperwork would have been required. ³⁵

3.190 Even after the 1982 Regulations were introduced, the CIEH continued to harbour concerns about the broader unfit meat regime. In a 1990 paper entitled 'The Illegal Trade in Unfit Meat for Human Consumption', it drew attention to a number of these:

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

The original report called for changes in legislation available to enforcement authorities. Yet subsequent changes in the Meat (Staining and Sterilisation) Regulations and the Food Act 1984 failed to effectively control unfit meat.

- There were no changes in the existing unsatisfactory system of meat marking. The IEHO recommended a system of roller marking.

- It is still not an offence to possess an unauthorised meat inspection stamp.

- There has been no change in the reference to 'for sale' in the Meat Inspection Regulations. Constant enforcement problems are experienced when the 'owner' insists that a carcass is not intended for sale for human consumption. (This will change with the inception of the Food Safety Act.)

- The BVA has introduced a new form for the Veterinary Certificate for Slaughterhouse Admission for Sick and Injured Animals, yet there is no legal requirement for proper documentation, and vets may continue to submit 'back of cigarette packet' certificates. There are still instances where vets certify dead animals for admission to a slaughterhouse, although this is illegal.

- There are no inspection requirements for knacker's yards, which may be adjacent to slaughterhouses and which should be under similar control.

- Knacker activities at unfit meat places such as zoos and hunt kennels are still outside the scope of licensing requirements.

- There are no requirements for the labelling of boxed meat at the wholesale stage despite stringent controls at the later, retail stage.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. All local authorities should urgently seek to identify areas of potential risk. In particular, EHOs should step up their checks of meat arriving at school and hospital kitchens and other institutions. Core samples should be taken for bacteriological examination and checks made back through the meat supply chain.

B. The Institution should set up a liaison network with other involved professions to establish closer working relationships.

C. Legislative controls must be introduced to cover knacker's yards and other associated activities, including hunt kennels. Legislation must be quickly introduced to alter the meat stamping system.

D. Casualty slaughter be must carefully controlled, while preserving the prime motive of preventing suffering to the animal.

E. Collection areas of knacker men/fallen stock collectors must be defined, with fixed unfit meat labelling to vehicles and it made an offence to sell dead animals to anyone other than a licensed operator.

F. Careful consideration should be given to the effectiveness of the Meat (Staining and Sterilisation) Regulations and to seek changes where necessary. ³⁶

Meat (Sterilisation and Staining)(Amendment) Regulations 1984

3.191 The 1982 Regulations were amended by the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining)(Amendment) Regulations 1984. What follows is a brief description of those amendments insofar as they are relevant to the discussion of the 1982 Regulations above.

3.192 The definition of 'specified offal' was amended to mean the hearts, kidneys, livers and lungs derived from an animal which, in the case of a carcass in a slaughterhouse, had been rejected by an authorised person as unfit for human consumption by reason of any disease or pathological condition other than:

1. ascariasis, fascioliasis, or telangiectasis; or
2. changes caused by the operations of stunning, slaughter or dressing of the animal. ³⁷

3.193 A Regulation was introduced disapplying the 1982 Regulations in respect of meat removed or intended to be removed from any place or premises by, or under the authority of, a veterinary surgeon for examination by him or on his behalf. ³⁸

3.194 A further prohibition was introduced against any person bringing, or causing or permitting to be brought, into England and Wales from Scotland or Northern Ireland any meat unfit for human consumption. ³⁹ The exemptions from this prohibition were identical to those which existed in relation to the removal of unfit meat from a slaughterhouse (as outlined in paragraph 3.141 above), save for the fact that importation of meat from Scotland and Northern Ireland required the meat to be accompanied to the destination by a consignment note or permit ⁴⁰ rather than a movement permit.

3.195 The driver of the vehicle in which the meat was delivered to any premises, accompanied by a consignment note or a permit, was required to give that note or copy of that permit to the occupier of those premises. The occupier was required to retain that document for two years and within seven days to send a copy to the local authority in whose area his premises were located. The document was required to be available for inspection by an authorised officer at any reasonable time. Upon receipt of the copy, the local authority was required forthwith to notify in writing of the arrival of the consignment:

1. in the case of an importation from Scotland, the local authority from whose district the meat was imported;
2. in the case of an importation from Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland.

This prohibition resulted in consequential amendments to the range of persons authorised to declare 'specified offal' as unfit ⁴¹ and to the prohibition on possession for sale, the exemptions from that prohibition and the defences to it in Regulation 20 of the 1982 Regulations.

3.196 Regulation 7 of the 1984 Regulations amended the list ⁴² of destinations to which unfit meat could be delivered under the authority of a movement permit. The first destination was amended to include a 'pharmaceutical extract supplier' - ie, a person whose business consisted, wholly or mainly, of the collection, storage, and preparation of glands, liquid extracts and other materials derived from the carcasses of animals, prior to their removal to a manufacturing chemist for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products.

3.197 The third destination was amended to prohibit the removal to a zoo, menagerie, fur farm, maggot farm, or greyhound kennels of carcass meat or offal rejected by an authorised person as unfit for human consumption by reason of tuberculosis. The fifth destination was amended so as to make removal or storage prior to further removal permissible only where the subsequent removal was to a processor; further removal to a 'manufacturing chemist' was no longer permitted.

3.198 Finally, subsequent removal, under Regulation 17(3) of the 1982 Regulations, from any of the listed destinations was now to be permitted in circumstances where the meat was removed from a hospital, medical or veterinary school, laboratory or similar institution in accordance with an arrangement in writing with, and under the supervision of, an authorised officer of the local authority in whose district the premises were situated to another destination listed in Regulation 17(1)(a) to (d) or to a place where it was buried or destroyed.

Table 3.3: Meat (Sterilisation & Staining) Regulations 1982: Principal requirements as to sterilisation & removal (excluding poultry and imported meat)