Volume 3: The Early Years, 1986-88
2.
Dissemination of information
Dissemination of information - a chronology
October 1987
November 1987
December 1987
January 1988
February 1988
March 1988
2.111 In October information about BSE was circulated widely by the CVL and MAFF.
2.112 On 5 and 6 October the NPU's first analysis of a BSE-infected brain, using the western blotting technique, gave evidence of abnormal prion protein. Dr James Hope told the Inquiry that it was immediately clear that BSE was a prion disease. 1 At meetings the following week, Dr Hope discussed with senior officials at the CVL experiments to characterise the bovine prion gene. 2
2.113 In mid-October Mr Suich of MAFF's Animal Health Division distributed a question and answer brief for dealing with press and public enquiries about BSE. It was proposed that the brief be circulated to all regional press and information officers. Mr Suich apologised for the fact that, as he had recently discovered, similar information had already been given to the NFU to allow its county secretaries to handle enquiries. He added that 'quite clearly the first priority ought to have been to brief our own press branch'. 3
2.114 Mr Suich also responded to expressions of doubt about the wisdom of issuing figures which ran the risk of confusing people, by observing that this risk was less serious than concealment. 4
2.115 On 17 October Mr Derek Andrews (later Sir Derek) succeeded Sir Michael Franklin as Permanent Secretary at MAFF.
2.116 On 23 October Farmers Weekly, Farming News and Farmers Guardian carried articles on BSE, which were followed two days later by an article in the Sunday Telegraph. 5
2.117 On 27 October Dr Cawthorne minuted all Superintending VIOs and SVIOs with information notes on BSE. He wrote to Regional Veterinary Officers in similar terms and provided identical copies of the information notes. He advised them of the need to stay within the guidelines issued to MAFF press officers in dealing with enquiries from the public. Recipients were advised that:
It is essential not to refer to the condition as bovine scrapie. While the clinical and pathological changes may provide evidence of its similarity to diseases caused by unconventional infectious agents such as scrapie in sheep, it is important to emphasise that the aetiological basis of BSE remains unknown and no connection with encephalopathies in other species, including scrapie in sheep, has been established. 6
2.118 On 30 October Mr Suich wrote to a number of British Embassies enclosing the briefing notes being used by MAFF's Information Division when responding to enquiries about BSE. He requested that these should be used not to initiate discussion but defensively. He observed:
. . . the fact that it so far appears to be a uniquely British disorder could prejudice our cattle exports if it is publicised in inaccurate or exaggerated terms. It would be particularly misleading if it were to be described as 'scrapie in cattle'. Scrapie is a disease of sheep, the existence of which in British flocks is an impediment to our export trade, but although it is also an encephalopathy there is no evidence that BSE is attributable to the same cause as scrapie and it is important to distinguish between the two conditions . . .
A point to emphasise, if you are pressed on numbers of cases, is that while it may be suspected in over 100 herds and distributed over a wide area, it has been confirmed in only 25 animals, out of a total UK cattle population of just over 12.5 million. Moreover, cases tend to be in individual animals rather than whole herds being affected. There is no evidence that it is transmissible to humans or that the meat or milk from animals with BSE are affected. 7
2.119 The last day of October saw the eventual publication of Mr Wells's paper in the Veterinary Record. It was co-authored by Mr Scott, Mr Johnson, Mr R F Gunning, Mr R D Hancock, Dr Jeffrey, Mr Mike Dawson, and Mr Bradley. The article was entitled 'A novel progressive spongiform encephalopathy in cattle'. 8
2.120 Mr William Gardner, who was at that time a Divisional Veterinary Officer in Scotland, told us that reading this article first made him aware of BSE. 9
2.121 Mr Sibley of the BCVA told us that the paper in the Veterinary Record was also the first large-scale publicity that the veterinary profession received about BSE. He noted, however, that it contained no requests for submissions of cases nor pleas to veterinarians for vigilance in detecting the disease. 10
2.122 Although the Veterinary Record article on BSE had now been published, the earlier paper on the nyala by Dr Jeffrey remained in abeyance. Mr Bradley indicated to Dr Jeffrey and the co-authors that the title 'Scrapie-like Disorder in a Nyala' might prevent approval being obtained for publication. The authors indicated that they did not wish to change the title, so Mr Bradley forwarded the draft paper to Dr Shreeve. 11 He submitted it to Dr Watson in this form. 12 A week later, Dr Watson wrote to Mr Bradley suggesting the title be amended to 'A Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Nyala'. 13 Mr Bradley referred this suggestion to Dr Jeffrey, who agreed to it, and the article was submitted for publication. 14
2.123 On 10 November 1987, Mr Rees chaired a meeting at SVS Headquarters in Tolworth, Surrey, with colleagues from the CVL and MAFF's Animal Health Division. Mr Wilesmith provided an update on the epidemiology.
2.124 Paragraph 3 of the minute of this meeting under 'Future Action' reads:
It was agreed that the brief for the Parliamentary Secretary would recommend an unattributable press briefing. If it took place, it would lay emphasis on the actual confirmed cases rather than the total confirmed/suspect picture. It would also point to the probability that the increasing numbers were not due to recent spread but the identification of the disorder through greater awareness. The point was also made that we would need to be able to respond to questions about the consumption of milk and meat. 15
Guidance to Environmental Health Officers
2.125 On 12 November, Mr Bradley told Dr Watson about a telephone call that he had received from a Mr Coultous, an Environmental Health Officer at Huntingdon District Council. Mr Coultous had asked what action should be taken in relation to a BSE-infected carcass, when the head had been collected by the VIC, with regard to meat inspection and public health. Mr Bradley advised Mr Coultous 'it should be treated as any other case on its merits'. He also told Mr Coultous that the CVL had no information that would induce them to direct otherwise. 16
2.126 Mr Coultous had suggested that the CVL prepare an article for the Environmental Health Journal which had wide circulation among Environmental Health Officers and which Mr Bradley noted 'might head off a lot of enquiries (or make more?)'. 17 Mr Coultous had told Mr Bradley that particular interest would be shown on the subject of meat inspection and BSE when its frequency became known in the meat trade. Mr Bradley suggested to Dr Watson that, 'Perhaps we should wait and see a while; it is still a sleeping dog so far as I am aware.' 18 Dr Watson minuted Dr Iain Crawford, Director of the VFS, on 13 November to inform him of the interest and adding that he thought that publicity in the Environmental Health Journal should be avoided 'at least for the present'. 19 Mr Crawford replied on 17 November 1987 noting that:
I agree that we should avoid any publicity on BSE in the Environmental Health Journal. The meat inspection procedures as currently laid down are to protect the consumer from any risk associated with disease in the carcass. As there is still so much still unknown about BSE, we would find ourselves in a difficult position if there should be any widespread publicity for action in the abattoir in the case of animals known to be affected with the condition. 20
2.127 On 14 November The Economist carried an article on BSE which included a discussion of the various theories of the nature of slow virus diseases. 21
2.128 In November and December the first experiments involving the transmission of BSE to mice were initiated by Dr Fraser at the NPU in collaboration with CVL scientists. 22 Infected material from cows' brains was injected into the brains of mice. Nearly a year later, in September 1988, Dr Fraser wrote to Dr Watson to inform him that he had achieved transmission of BSE to mice, thereby confirming that BSE was a TSE. 23
2.129 On 1 December Mr Bradley minuted Dr Watson setting out policy options in relation to the obtaining of submissions of brains of cattle suspected of suffering from BSE, and the pathological examination of them. He commented that the epidemiological objectives included monitoring the incidence of BSE, both within herds and nationally, and the development of aetiologic hypotheses that could be tested.
2.130 One option advanced was making BSE notifiable. As to this, he commented:
This would secure theoretically the highest proportion of submissions. It would be costly to administer and may need legislative action. The Veterinary Field Service would be involved. We would need to be geared up to dealing with the increased input of specimens that might initially be expected. This would mean more staff being deployed towards BSE and less elsewhere. Since we have no way of knowing the future submission rate and it might fall, investment might become a white elephant. When a diagnosis is made what would be done about it? How would a farm be reclassified as a BSE negative farm? By making the disease notifiable it may be ascribing a priority to BSE which it does not merit and which might interfere with trade in animals, cattle products, embryos and semen to the detriment of the industry and the country's balance of payments. For a disease with less than 100 cases diagnosed out of a population of 12 million notification seems a draconian step to take. If taken it might imply to the general public we know something they don't like the meat or milk is a source of danger for humans. 24
2.131 Mr Rees chaired a meeting on 8 January to consider options. This is considered in more detail in Chapter 5. Making the disease notifiable without any other measures was not considered to be a viable proposition. 25
2.132 In January 1988 Mr Bradley issued policy guidelines to members of the BSE Group on presentations and publications. The guidelines aimed to 'control' rather than to 'prevent' presentation of the CVL's work. Mr Bradley noted that policy discussions were at a 'delicate stage' and that Mr Rees wished to be:
. . . kept well informed of desires, intentions, and invitations so that we are not the ones to upset the delicate situation by presentation of new information at an inappropriate time. Senior management are well aware of the need to 'publish' and if we proceed as indicated I trust all will go smoothly. 26
2.133 The same month Mr Mike Dawson reported on the findings of a molecular biology experiment which had been carried out in close cooperation with Dr Hope and others at the NPU. The NPU had characterised BSE as a TSE partly on the basis that SAFs similar to those found in scrapie-infected sheep and rodents had been found in the brains of BSE-infected cattle. As a result the CVL provisionally categorised BSE as a TSE. 27
2.134 In February Mr Suich circulated a draft submission to update the Parliamentary Secretary on BSE which recommended a slaughter and compensation policy. Mr Suich noted that the Ministry's policy to that point had been to provide low-key factual information to the veterinary profession and the farming industry in order to forestall inaccurate reports and to encourage the reporting of suspect cases. 28
2.135 On 16 February Mr Cruickshank copied a slightly amended version of this draft submission to colleagues in MAFF and also to Mr George Thomson in DAFS, Mr R Bollington in WOAD and Mr D Hirrell at DANI. This appears to have been the first submission on BSE formally copied to officials in Northern Ireland. 29
2.136 By March 1988 Dr Jeffrey's paper had been cleared for publication in Veterinary Pathology under the title 'Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Nyala'. The article finally appeared in print in September 1988. 30
1 S57 Hope para. 24
2 YB87/10.12/1.1
3 YB87/10.15/1.1
4 YB87/10.19/1.1; YB87/10.20/1.1
5 YB87/10.25/3.1
6 YB87/10.27/3.1-3.4; S93 Cawthorne para. 20
7 YB87/10.30/1.1
8 Veterinary Record, vol. 121, 31 October 1987, p. 419
9 S277 Gardner para. 9
10 S421 Sibley para. 3(vii)
11 YB87/11.5/1.1
12 YB87/11.5/1.1
13 YB87/11.11/2.1
14 YB87/11.17/1.1
15 YB87/11.10/1.1-1.2
16 YB87/11.12/1.1
17 YB87/11.12/1.2
18 YB87/11.12/1.2
19 YB87/11.13/1.1
20 YB87/11.13/1.1; YB87/11.17/2.1
21 YB87/11.14/2.1
22 S56 Fraser para. 5
23 YB88/9.27/2.1
24 YB87/12.1/2.2
25 YB88/1.8/2.3
26 YB88/1.18/1.1
27 S71 Bradley para. 94
28 YB88/2.10/1.3-1.4
29 YB88/2.16/1.1-1.10; the submission that went to the Minister is discussed in Chapter 5
30 Veterinary Pathology, vol. 25, 1988, p. 398
© Crown Copyright 2000. Legal notice.
Any part of this report may be reproduced subject to acknowledgement.