Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Monitoring in slaughterhouses, November 1990 to January 1993
Introduction of unannounced visits to slaughterhouses

4.128 In early 1990 there were 814 slaughterhouses in Great Britain, 84 of which were export-approved slaughterhouses which provided 43 per cent of the output. ¹ By early 1994 the number had fallen to 523, 101 of which were export approved. ² There were an additional 16 slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland in 1989, dropping to 11 by 1994. ³ Features of the slaughtering industry and the processes involved are described in vol. 13: Industry, Processes and Controls.

4.129 On 18 January 1991 Mr Crawford wrote to all RVOs regarding the results of the one-off survey on the handling of SBO in slaughterhouses which had been undertaken in response to Mr Baker's telex of 12 November 1990. Mr Crawford had reiterated the request on 18 December. ⁴ He had found the survey to be of limited value, due to the variation in format and detail of the returns, which were received from only 36 of the 44 divisions. Because of the uncertainty, he had been unable in many cases to identify whether SBO material was stained prior to despatch or whether it was accompanied by a local authority movement permit. Therefore, he asked for the information to be resubmitted by 25 February 1991. A pro forma return was provided, which was to be completed for each slaughterhouse, along with a pro forma summary of returns to be completed by each DVO. The pro forma was intended to ensure that the returns were standardised and would provide the required information. The pro forma to be completed for individual slaughterhouses asked the following questions:

3. Are brains removed on site? ..........................................Yes/No

If YES, describe technique used and indicate whether meat for human consumption is at risk of contamination.

4. Are intact skulls sent to boning plants?..............................Yes/No

If YES, are LA movement permits obtained?..........................Yes/No

5. Are specified bovine offals sterilised on site?......................Yes/No

If NO, are the staining requirements of the above Regulations met?..........................................................Yes/No

If NO, give details:

6. Are unsterilised specified bovine offals accompanied by appropriate LA permits on despatch from the premises? ............Yes/No

If NO, give details:

7. Give destination(s) of specified bovine offals.

Under which heading should this destination be classed?

(a) Processor

(b) Holding premises

(c) Exempted premises (specify type)

(d) Other (specify)

Contraventions

Local Authority Nature of contravention Action taken ⁵

4.130 DVOs were also required to provide a summary of findings for the individual slaughterhouses, which tallied the number of plants in which the practices described above took place. ⁶

4.131 The need for reliable information regarding the level of compliance in slaughterhouses was highlighted three days later, when Mr Hutchins minuted Mr Lawrence in response to reported allegations of 'wrong-doing' in relation to SBO at two premises. Mr Hutchins said that the SVS returns for the two plants in question showed no evidence of wrongdoing, and that more information would be required on the alleged contraventions if further investigations were to be made. Mr Hutchins said that he had written to the relevant Regional Meat Hygiene Advisor in one case, but suggested that the chances of coming across a problem by chance even at an unannounced visit were 'remote'. ⁷

4.132 Prior to the collation of the results of SVS visits, Mr Meldrum attended a meeting of the Expert Group on Animal Feeding Stuffs (the Lamming Committee) on 13 March 1991. The Lamming Committee had been established in February 1991 to review the existing framework covering the animal feed industry in the UK. Mr Meldrum was recorded as saying:

With regard to slaughterhouses, there was close contact between MAFF and the industry, who showed a high level of awareness of the legislation, and no major problems had been found at inspections. He was confident that bovine offals were not finding their way into the feed/food chain. ⁸

4.133 The SVS visits to slaughterhouses required by Mr Crawford's minute of 18 January were duly undertaken, and on 5 April 1991 Mr Hutchins produced his first summary of returns. An appendix to the summary provided the following breakdown of information received:

1. Number of slaughterhouses 570

2. Number of slaughterhouses where brains 75 (13%)removed on site

3. Number of slaughterhouses sending intact 256 (45%)skulls to specialist boning plants

4. Number of slaughterhouses which sterilise SBOs 11 (2%)on site ⁹

5. Number of slaughterhouses where unsterilised SBOs 13 (2%)were not stained pre-despatch

6. Number of slaughterhouses where movement permits 13 (2%) ¹⁰were not obtained pre-despatch

4.134 On 8 April, within three days of receiving the summaries of returns, Mr Crawford asked Mr Hutchins to follow up cases where unsterilised SBO was not stained pre-despatch and where movement permits were not being obtained. He also asked SVS staff to confirm whether their approaches to local authorities had the effect of correcting the contraventions. ¹¹

4.135 A week later, on 15 April 1991, Mr Hutchins wrote letters to various Animal Health Officers noting that there were deficiencies in certain aspects of the handling of SBO at some slaughterhouses in their division. He asked them to 'confirm that the steps taken to inform the local authority and plant management of these deficiencies have had the effect of correcting the contraventions'. ¹²

4.136 Soon after, on 17 April, Mr Crawford wrote to all Territorial RVOs (England, Scotland and Wales) about the returns from slaughterhouse visits, which had been summarised by Mr Hutchins. ¹³ Mr Crawford said that it seemed that there were still a significant number of premises where the regulations were not being observed, 'to a greater or lesser extent'. He noted that Mr Hutchins had asked the relevant DVOs to 'follow up with Local Authorities and report on the outcome of their actions'. Mr Crawford said:

. . . in view of the deficiencies noted, I feel that we cannot let the matter drop without further action. To do so would be open to criticism. I would therefore ask RVOs to request their DVOs to organise a further round of visits, to all abattoirs which handle bovines, and to report on how the specified offals are being handled. The returns should be sent to Steve Hutchins, in the previously agreed format, to arrive not later than the end of May.

¹⁴

4.137 By this time, members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) had visited slaughterhouses to observe the methods used in the removal of SBO. On 20 May Dr Richard Kimberlin of SEAC and Dr Pickles, joint secretary of SEAC, attended a meeting of the Lamming Committee, where they were asked about the efficacy of slaughterhouse procedures to remove and separate SBOs. Dr Kimberlin observed that the 'main possibility of contamination from specified offals probably lay in the procedures for separating them from non-specified offals after their removal from the carcass'. However, Dr Pickles regarded it as unlikely that brain tissue, where the bulk of the BSE agent resided, 'would be put in the wrong bucket'. Dr Cooke and Mr Maclean ¹⁵ 'expressed concern at the animal health implications if such a mistake did occur with specified offals, particularly the spinal cord'. Dr Pickles 'added that the specified offals ban had been originally prompted by human health considerations, and the feed ban simply reproduced those [regulations] in place for humans'. ¹⁶

4.138 Concerns had been raised about the potential for local authorities to become resentful of SVS intrusion into areas of local authority responsibility, where the SVS had no statutory enforcement role (see vol. 6: Human Health 1989-96). In May 1991 it emerged that at least one DVO was encountering resistance from an EHO over the proactive role the SVS was taking in monitoring compliance with the SBO Regulations. Mr A G McFarlane, DVO, Trowbridge, reported to Mr John Kirkham, DRVO, Bristol:

At a recent very tight-lipped exchange about other matters with North Wilts Environmental Health Officer, Mr Bob Barrett, I was advised that as the [1989 SBO] Regulations are made under the Food Act 1984 they are enforced by the District Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture have no statutory responsibility for observation or enforcement. I was asked why the State Veterinary Service felt they had to make approach to the slaughterhouses to review compliance rather than making direct contact with Environmental Health Officers concerned to obtain the information. ¹⁷

4.139 At the fifth meeting of the Lamming Committee on 13 June 1991, it was noted that visits had been made to a Prosper De Mulder rendering plant. Minutes of the meeting record that 'the renderers had mentioned that not all slaughterhouses were separating out the specified offal, and that there was little general staining of condemned material'. ¹⁸

4.140 The results of the second round of visits were summarised and circulated within MAFF by Mr Hutchins on 19 June 1991. The survey covered 581 slaughterhouses. Of these, 12 were reported to be sterilising SBO on site. The summary recorded that 18 slaughterhouses had failed to stain SBO properly, and 13 had failed to obtain local authority movement permits for the removal of SBO. In conclusion, it was said that the 'overall picture remains quite encouraging, although there has been a slight increase in the number of premises failing to stain SBOs prior to despatch'. ¹⁹

4.141 Mrs Attridge was asked in oral evidence whether this report raised questions as to the level of compliance in slaughterhouses:

What I would say was that it identified where the local authority needed to be told to pull their socks up. I think in this you are not - and we have gone round this circuit before - it is impossible to have 100 per cent total compliance, because there will be days when no doubt operators are feeling off or not feeling well. But I come back to the point that you must look at this not as a human health risk, this is an animal health risk. It is in relation to preventing these products getting into the animal food chain. And the very fact that these deficiencies were being picked up to my mind is encouraging, because it does show they are on the ball and maintaining local authorities do it better. ²⁰

4.142 Mr Crawford said in oral evidence that the reports did not cause him 'particular concern' as:

It was a pointer there that we needed to be active and to reinforce the requirements. In fact, if we look at the numbers, 18 identified, what sort of percentage was that of the total? You would not be looking at all 750 abattoirs during that specific period, but it may have been half of them looked at at that time, so 18 out of 300, 350. It was not a huge problem. ²¹

4.143 Reports of non-compliance were pursued by MAFF. However, as responsibility for enforcement lay with local authorities, ensuring that appropriate action was taken could prove difficult. For instance, on 24 June 1991 Mr Hutchins wrote to Mr Jack Keir, VO at Carlisle Animal Health Office, regarding Mr Keir's response to the non-compliance identified in the most recent returns at slaughterhouses under his charge. He noted that, according to Mr Keir's May/June return, one of the slaughterhouses in his district was among those failing to stain SBO before despatch. Despite this, the Carlisle Animal Health Office had taken no action. Mr Hutchins pointed out that 'it would normally be expected that the local authority would be reminded, by letter, of the legal requirements and asked to take any necessary action in respect of the premises concerned'. ²²

Introduction of unannounced visits to slaughterhouses

4.144 Whilst the returns provided by the SVS did not suggest any serious or widespread non-compliance with the animal SBO ban, some MAFF officials were beginning to receive very different reports from alternative sources. As early as December 1990, Mr Peter Carrigan of Specialpack Limited had written to Mr Lawrence and reported that 'the rules on staining are being grossly flouted and there are areas which require your very urgent attention'. ²³ Mr Carrigan explained in oral evidence to the Inquiry that:

. . . there is no doubt at all in my mind that because of the lack of supervision in the abattoirs, the ad hoc manner in which things were or were not stained, that material was still escaping out into the - I must be very specific about this - the animal feed chain. ²⁴

4.145 On 25 June 1991 Mr Meldrum minuted Mr Hutchins, expressing 'extreme' concern about information he had received from 'other sources' to the effect that little SBO was being stained in slaughterhouses. Mr Meldrum asked that further advice be issued to local authorities through DVOs.

²⁵

4.146 On 11 July 1991 Mr Crawford minuted Mr Hutchins regarding recent discussions he had had with Mr Meldrum. Mr Crawford reported that Mr Meldrum had received 'information from a "reliable" source within the rendering industry' that significant quantities of SBO were not being treated in accordance with the Regulations. Mr Crawford asked Mr Hutchins to prepare a draft circular letter to DVOs, with copies to RVOs and RMHAs, asking them to discuss the Regulations with their local authorities and to ensure that their staff made the occasional unannounced visit to slaughterhouses to view the handling of SBO. He stated that routine reports should 'describe any shortcomings seen at the unannounced visits'. ²⁶

4.147 AHC 91/61 was issued to SVS field staff in England, Wales and Scotland on 12 August 1991. It stated:

Although routine reports from Divisions indicate that the handling of specified bovine offals in slaughterhouses is satisfactory, information has been received in Headquarters from sections of the Industry that there are significant shortfalls in compliance with the Regulations. It has been suggested that conditions seen during announced visits may not reflect the day to day situation. In view of the widespread interest in the controls over specified bovine offals, it is essential that the Regulations are seen to be enforced evenly and effectively across the country.

Arrangements should therefore be made for occasional unannounced visits to abattoirs to ensure compliance with the Regulations. Follow-up visits should be made where problems are identified. Local Authorities in whose Districts red meat slaughterhouses are situated should also be reminded of the sensitivity of this subject and of the need for their staff to ensure that the Regulations are being fully observed.

Any deficiencies identified, whether at unannounced visits or those carried out routinely for other purposes, must be notified in writing to the Local Authority . . . ²⁷

4.148 The results of these unannounced visits are difficult to determine as reports on slaughterhouse visits for the period from June 1991 until early 1993 are no longer available.

4.149 The Lamming Committee Report was published on 16 July 1992. The Committee recognised the importance of both the ruminant feed ban and the animal SBO ban in the control of BSE, and in minimising the exposure of other species to the agent and recommended that they be maintained ²⁸ (see Chapter 2). They regarded the SBO ban as an important precautionary measure. The report stated:

The evidence suggests that in the majority of cases, the controls are working, despite the fact that the ruminant protein ban and the specified offals ban are to a considerable extent dependent of self-regulation by the industry. ²⁹

4.150 On 7 August 1992, AHC 92/94 was issued to field staff. It noted that reports from industry suggested that SBO was not always being kept separate from other material, and that as a result some MBM derived from SBO was going into animal feed. The AHC stated that the 'essential feature in effective control' was to ensure that SBO was kept separate from other material at the slaughterhouse and during transportation to rendering plants. New requirements for renderers on the movement of MBM derived from SBO and the conditions of movement licences introduced under the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991 are discussed at paragraphs 4.191-4.192 below. However, the information in the licences was to be verified by spot checks at premises where SBO was produced, including slaughterhouses, knacker's yards and hunt kennels. Further, the AHC stated that comparing the weight of SBO raw material input and protein yield was another check that should be carried out at rendering plants from time to time. Major discrepancies would justify follow-up action. ³⁰

4.151 On 18 January 1993, MAFF distributed AHC 93/6 to all veterinary field staff in England, Wales and Scotland. The AHC addressed the introduction of the single standard in meat hygiene inspection within the European Community (EC) and was issued independently of any other instructions on the monitoring of SBO. From 1 January 1993, all slaughterhouses in the UK were required to meet the standards imposed on premises approved for export to the EC. As a consequence, veterinary supervision became a requirement in all slaughterhouses. In recognition of this fact, SVS visits to slaughterhouses to check on compliance with hygiene requirements were reduced in frequency. Previously visits to export-approved premises were monthly, all other premises visited once a year. After 1 January 1993, 'full-throughput' licensed slaughterhouses were to be visited at least once every three months, while 'low-throughput' ³¹ slaughterhouses were to be visited at least once a year. Unannounced visits were to be made if considered necessary. ³²