Volume 3: The Early Years, 1986-88
4. The ruminant feed ban
The decision to grant a period of grace

4.24 On 7 June 1988 UKASTA wrote to Mr MacGregor to make the following plea:

We would urge you most strongly to allow feed compounders time to clear stocks of ruminant feeds containing the proscribed animal protein. These feeds have been manufactured before members heard of the Ministry's announcement last week and thus will already be in the system, either on-farm or in the various distribution channels used by individual feed compounders. Unless the industry has the opportunity to clear stocks, individual members could be faced with considerable claims from farmers, either for compensation or for the feed to be removed from farm. We would thus be grateful if you could defer the enforcement of that section of the new Order suspending the use of animal proteins in ruminant rations for as long as possible. Failure to do this could, in turn, result in our having to press for compensation from the Government. ¹

4.25 On the following day Mr Lawrence sought Ministers' agreement and signature to the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988. This was simultaneously presented to MAFF, Scottish and Welsh Ministers for approval. In his minute he explained why it was that the Order was allowing a two-month period of grace:

A particular concern of the feed industry (which was not registered at the meeting but has come to light since) is pipeline stocks. UKASTA, GAFTA, the UK Renderers and a number of individual companies have stressed the difficulties which will arise if stocks in the pipeline cannot be used up prior to the prohibition. We believe this to be a genuine problem, which will not be resolved through the 21 days which elapse between the making of the Order and its coming into force. UKASTA has suggested that three months should be allowed to elapse before the prohibition bites. We consider that this is too long a period but that there are no overriding veterinary reasons why we should not permit them a two month period of grace from the date of making before this particular part of the legislation comes into force. ²

4.26 This led Mr J Coe of MAFF's Information Division to warn the Minister that if a two-month period of grace were given to the industry:

. . . it is likely to ruin the generally good press reception that our original announcement received. We will be accused of risking the further spread of the disease simply to make life easy for the industry. Our position would be very difficult to defend. ³

4.27 After discussion with Mr Thompson, Mr MacGregor's response was, by way of compromise, to defer the date upon which the feed ban would come into force to 18 July. He suggested, however, that there was no justification for granting this period of grace to renderers, by which he intended to mean the producers of animal feed. ⁴ To this suggestion, Mr Cruickshank responded:

The position of the renderers is that they produce protein products for incorporation in animal feeds. We are not proposing to ban the production of these products - just their incorporation in ruminant feeds. Use in pig and poultry rations will continue to be permitted. I understand the Minister's concern is that the prohibition on incorporation in ruminant feeds should be imposed as quickly as possible. The effect of this would be felt primarily not by the renderers but by those who prepare the final feeds for cattle. This includes a wide range of businesses ranging from the large compounders through small local feed mixers to the farmers who mix their own feed.

Although as I said in my minute of 9 June ⁵ we believe most compounders have already stopped incorporating animal protein, there are certainly many farmers who have drums of protein supplements on their farms. As I have indicated, it will be impossible in practice to prevent farmers from using the material in the next few weeks. I think it would be very difficult also to try to distinguish between farmers who mix their own feed and small local feed mixers - not least because farm mixers may supply feed to neighbouring farmers as well as using it themselves. It would be equally difficult to distinguish between small local mixers and large compounders. What we are dealing with is a long graduation with no clear break-point.

I would therefore suggest that we apply the 18 July cut-off to all incorporation of the material in question, whoever carries out the incorporation. ⁶

4.28 Mr MacGregor accepted this advice. The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988, which he signed on 14 June, included the following provision which came into effect on 18 July 1988:

Prohibition of sale, supply and use of certain feedingstuff for feeding to ruminating animals

7.

(1) No person shall knowingly sell or supply for feeding to animals any feedingstuff in which he knows or has reason to suspect any animal protein has been incorporated.

(2) No person shall feed to an animal any feedingstuff in which he knows or has reason to suspect that any animal protein has been incorporated.

(3) This article shall cease to have effect on 1 January 1989. ⁷

4.29 'Animals' were defined to mean ruminant animals and 'animal protein' was, by a rather complex chain of definitions, restricted to protein derived from the carcass of a ruminant animal. ⁸

4.30 This Order [the ruminant feed ban] only applied within Great Britain. The history of the decision to delay parallel provisions in Northern Ireland is set out in vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

4.31 On 25 July the European Commission was officially informed of the ruminant feed ban, and the following day BSE was first discussed by the Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels. ⁹