Volume 3: The Early Years, 1986-88
4. The ruminant feed ban
Mr MacGregor's decision

4.4 Mr Rees's submission to Mr John MacGregor on 6 May 1988 (see paragraph 3.62) coupled a recommendation on ruminant feed with a recommendation of a slaughter policy (see Chapter 5). The latter we deal with elsewhere. So far as the former is concerned, Mr Rees's objective was:

To eliminate the continuing source of infection by a temporary withdrawal of meat and bonemeal from ruminant feedingstuffs until effective processing systems are operating. ¹

4.5 The submission recommended that the withdrawal be sought on a voluntary basis but that if the feed industry did not cooperate, a mandatory ban could be introduced by subordinate legislation under the Animal Health Act 1981. ²

4.6 The submission explained that investigations were in train, which might take some months to complete, to see whether it was possible to differentiate between 'safe' plants and processes and those which were not safe. The proposed withdrawal would not apply to pig and poultry feed, principally because there was no evidence that these species were susceptible to the disease. Even if they were, clinical symptoms were unlikely to develop within their life cycle. As most MBM was used for pig and poultry feed, the ruminant feed ban was unlikely to have significant economic consequences. ³

4.7 When Mr Rees gave oral evidence, he explained to us that he had advocated a voluntary ban as he considered that this would be the most speedy way of introducing the ban, provided that the industry cooperated. He had no reason to believe at this stage that they would not. ⁴

4.8 Mr Cruickshank gave us a rather different explanation of the recommendation of a voluntary ban. He said it was a consequence of officials' disappointment at what they saw as Mr MacGregor's peremptory rejection of their slaughter and compensation recommendation. This led them to shade their advice in relation to a ruminant feed ban in such a way as to maximise its chance of success. They would all have preferred a compulsory ban but feared that it would be difficult to get Ministers to agree on even voluntary action. In the event the Minister's perception had changed. Had this been appreciated, the submission would have proposed a compulsory ban. ⁵

4.9 On 18 May 1988, during Mr Rees's absence abroad, Mr Meldrum (who was to succeed him as CVO at the end of the month) met with Mr John MacGregor, Mr Donald Thompson and MAFF officials, including Mr Andrews and Mr Cruickshank, to discuss Mr Rees's submission. It was reiterated that all the evidence pointed to the cause of BSE being MBM derived from sheep material. Any scrapie agent in that material could only be inactivated at a high temperature. Given that there were so many uncertainties, a complete withdrawal of the MBM material from feed for ruminants was considered to be the only safe solution. After prolonged discussions of the relative merits of a voluntary and a compulsory ban the Minister took the view that:

All the evidence pointed to a speedy and compulsory ban of sheepmeat material in feed for ruminants until effective processing systems were operating. A negative resolution SI [Statutory Instrument] would be needed. It was important to act quickly and to be seen to be taking adequate measures. ⁶

4.10 Mr MacGregor was wise to opt for a compulsory ban. At their meeting on 11 May the feed executive committee of UKASTA had concluded that:

Since there was no firm evidence confirming that the disease was spread through the feed route . . . a voluntary ban was not the way to solve the problem. ⁷

4.11 Sir Richard Southwood was told of the proposed ban by Mr Andrews on19 May and commented that this was an excellent first step and one that he had intended to advise. ⁸

4.12 On 24 May 1988 Mr Lawrence minuted MAFF's legal division asking them to prepare urgently a draft Order to introduce the feed ban. He said that he and various colleagues whom he had consulted believed that something on the following lines might suffice:

The use of any animal derived protein for incorporation into rations for feeding to ruminants is prohibited. ⁹

4.13 Mr Lawrence suggested that animal-derived protein might be defined as 'any protein material which derives from the carcass of any bovine, ovine or caprine species'. This definition would have the benefit of excluding tallow produced from the fat element of the rendering process. He added:

We would also like to supplement this provision with another which would place a responsibility on farmers (owners) not to use rations for ruminants which contain any animal derived protein. The idea is that this would provide a long-stop and would cover the initial period when prohibited feed material was still in the pipeline. ¹⁰

4.14 Mr Lawrence told us that he could not now remember the origin of this proposal. He believed he must have discussed it with others at Tolworth such as Mr Suich, Mr Taylor, or the CVO. ¹¹