Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Monitoring in rendering plants and collection centres, November 1990 to January 1993
Mr Lawrence questions the effectiveness of the SVS visits to rendering plants
SVS visits continue
The use of tallow in animal feed
SVS visits continue
Code of Practice for renderers on the handling of SBO
The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991
SVS monitoring continues
Consideration of the Draft Code of Practice
SVS monitoring continues
The use of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed is considered
Mr Lawrence raises further concerns
The Code of Practice is issued to renderers
SVS visits continue
Animal By-Products Order 1992

4.152 In early 1991 there were 48 rendering plants in Great Britain and four plants in Northern Ireland. ¹ The greatest number of collection centres, identified from SVS visits between 1990 and 1993, was 15. This figure included rendering plants receiving SBO but not rendering it. ² A description of the rendering processes and features of the industry are discussed in Chapter 6 of vol. 13: Industry, Processes and Controls.

4.153 As set out in paragraph 4.94 above, from November 1990, SVS staff were instructed to make monthly visits to rendering plants to monitor compliance with the SBO controls. Information was requested on the awareness of specified offals generally, and in particular on how specified offals were identified, kept separate, processed and disposed of after processing. ³ This request was reiterated in a telex from Mr Crawford on 18 December 1990. ⁴

4.154 The results of the first monthly visits to rendering plants were summarised by Mr Hutchins and circulated on 12 January 1991. The returns were compiled from visits to 30 rendering plants, 18 of which rendered SBO. General awareness of the legislation was said to be 'very high' and identification of SBO was described as 'good' with separate containers being used at slaughterhouses prior to despatch to renderers. The SBO remained in original delivery containers, but on emptying into bays the possibility of leakage of fluid into other bays was noted. Twelve of the 18 premises rendering SBO and non-SBO material were doing so in shared cooking facilities but at different times. Cleaning methods used for processing equipment were specified in only a few returns. Methods identified ranged from running bones or hot tallow through a machine after a run of SBO, to no cleaning at all. MBM derived from SBO was buried in landfill sites, ploughed into the renderer's land, or stored. ⁵

4.155 Despite there being no written request to visit collection centres, Mr Hutchins's summary also identified 12 collection centres, ⁶ from which information had been received indicating that operators were familiar with the legislation and that compliance was achieved. Storage conditions were generally acceptable, although, as in some rendering plants, there was a possibility of leakage from SBO bays to other areas in some collection centres. ⁷

4.156 Mr Hutchins suggested that future returns from rendering plants should give details of the cleaning of processing equipment used to process both SBO and other waste and details of tallow disposal. Mr Hutchins concluded:

Some concerns have been expressed by field staff as to the input required for these monthly returns. I have discussed this point with Mr Baker, and wonder whether consideration should be given to a programme of visits every three months, backed up by informal contacts with local authorities and operators each month. Returns would only need to be submitted for the quarterly visits or in the event of significant developments. ⁸

4.157 Responding to this summary of returns, Mr Meldrum minuted Mr Crawford on 21 January 1991, highlighting the importance of providing feedback to field staff to ensure uniform application of the rules on handling SBO. He noted the need to cover the possibility of leakage of fluid from SBO bays and to ensure that there was no deliberate mixing of SBO and other offal. In relation to Mr Hutchins's suggestion on the frequency of visits, Mr Meldrum said 'I take the view that we do need repeat visits and returns in view of the importance of this issue'. He asked for:

1. more information on time/temperature combinations in premises where SBO was being processed;
2. more detail, where machinery was not cleaned after processing of SBO, and for advice to be given to the operator; and
3. information on how tallow was being used. ⁹

4.158 Mr Meldrum's request led to the issue of AHC 91/9 to all RVOs on 13 February 1991. It requested that all rendering plants and collection centres handling SBOs be visited that month. Thereafter visits to collection centres were to be carried out once every two months, while the frequency of visits to renderers was to be reduced from monthly to once every two months. Visits could be made by an AHO. The circular enclosed a pro forma on the handling of SBO, including separate forms for rendering plants and collection centres. The following questions were to be asked of renderers processing SBO:

1. Is the operator familiar with the requirement of the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations?

2. How are SBOs identified during collection and transport?

3. How are SBOs handled at the rendering plant?

4. How are SBOs kept separate from other materials on the rendering plant during storage (there should be no direct or indirect contact)?

Is there leakage of fluids from the SBOs to other materials.........Yes/No If 'Yes', what advice has been given to the operator?

5. Processing procedures for SBO

a) Time/temperature of process

b) Are SBOs handled in separate pre-heating equipment ?.........Yes/No eg grinders, crushers etc

c) If 'No' to (b), how is equipment cleaned after SBO processing?

f) What use is made of the tallow produced?

6. Indicate the disposal procedures for the processed SBO material.

Are the requirements of the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations satisfied? ..................................................................Yes/No If 'No', specify the contraventions identified, and the action taken. ¹⁰

4.159 A similar pro forma was provided for collection centres, which in addition to questions 1 - 4 above asked the destination of the SBOs. ¹¹

4.160 On 1 March a corrigendum to the AHC (AHC 91/14) was issued adding the missing sub-questions 5 d) and e) to the pro forma. They were:

d) Is a cooker reserved solely for processing of SBOs?................Yes/No

e) If 'No' to (d), how is the equipment cleaned after SBO processing? ¹²

4.161 Mr Hutchins's summary of the returns on rendering plants for February 1991, largely collated before the issue of AHC 91/9, stated that there had been very few changes in the returns from those submitted for the previous month. Awareness of the SBO regulations remained 'high', with operators 'reported to be fully aware of their legal responsibilities'. SBO was identified by the use of separate marked bins and containers. No problems with the separation of SBO were recorded, and the problem reported previously of leakage from one bay to another was not recorded amongst the latest returns. Furthermore, no changes were reported on the disposal of MBM derived from SBO. The summary recorded that tallow derived from SBO was used in poultry feed, 'animal' feed, soap and for 'industrial purposes'. ¹³

Mr Lawrence questions the effectiveness of the SVS visits to rendering plants

4.162 However, the promising reports from the SVS returns were contradicted by reports from industry of non-compliance with the animal SBO ban. Mr Lawrence expressed his concerns about the existing scheme of SVS visits and returns in a minute to Mr Crawford on 5 March 1991. Copies went to Mr Meldrum, Mr K Taylor, Mr K Baker, Mr Lowson, Mr D Taylor, Mr Hutchinson, Mr Maslin and Dr Matthews. The minute attached a copy of a note from a 'reliable' but unnamed source alleging wrongdoing in respect of SBO in certain rendering plants. Mr Lawrence stated that the problem was that if a VO or AHO followed up such reports, either by telephone or by a visit, there would simply be a flat denial. He added that 'short of catching them in the act it is a pretty hopeless task'. ¹⁴

4.163 Mr Lawrence repeated his previous suggestion for improving the monitoring of compliance with the ban:

I still maintain that in certain cases the completion of the questionnaire may not be enough. I have suggested in the past that a more scientific approach would be to track the movement of raw material from abattoirs right through to the disposal of meat and bonemeal. I know that such an exercise is fraught with difficulties (not least in trying to correlate the weight of the raw material to the finished product - as I am sure Steve Hutchins will remind me!). But the plain fact is that regular visits and the completion of a questionnaire won't deter abuse. And persistent reports suggest that it is going on . . .

Is a possible approach to look at the records at rendering plants - perhaps during the PAPO visits [inspections under the Processing of Animals Protein Order 1989] or during visits to check on SBOs? At least if the news got round that MAFF were conducting more 'in depth' checks it might deter some. ¹⁵

4.164 Mr Crawford responded two days later:

I appreciate that confidentiality of the source of the information probably has to be observed but I would like to have a little more information. It is possible that if we know how this information was obtained it may give us a lead on how to find the evidence. The processors mentioned are reasonably widely distributed and there must therefore be a question of how one informant gained all of this information. I would like to discuss this with you in a little more detail.

Although I agree that it will be difficult to catch these operators in the act, I would like to consider in more depth what action we can take and will take advice from colleagues over the next few days. I will then agree a line of action with RVOs when they are in Tolworth next week.

¹⁶

4.165 Mr Crawford explained to the Inquiry that pursuing such reports of non-compliance proved difficult:

We regularly received from reliable sources who wished to remain anonymous various allegations and our staff spent quite a bit of time investigating them and they were never substantiated...we were told that SBOs were arriving at renderers without being stained and several renderers were being mentioned, and that is why I was saying it would be geographically widespread. Our staff did follow this up and they did not find evidence when they went to the renderers at that time. Later in 1994 they did. ¹⁷

4.166 Mr Lawrence's proposal for an alternative system of monitoring by tracking SBO through processing was again rejected. Mr Crawford confirmed that he consulted colleagues within MAFF about the proposal:

But the outcome obviously was against making checks because we did not implement them at that time. We did also of course take his point about checks throughout the chain, and later on we introduced checks, but that was not until 1993 that we introduced checks from slaughterhouse to disposal. ¹⁸

SVS visits continue

4.167 On 7 May 1991 Mr Hutchins circulated a further summary of returns from 19 rendering plants receiving or processing SBO and 15 collection centres. He noted:

1. the quality of information had improved since the introduction of pro formas;
2. awareness of the legislation remained high;
3. identification of SBO material was generally achieved by the use of separate bins but the staining of SBO at slaughterhouses was also used as a means of identification;
4. separation of SBO material was 'generally good', with clear separation between SBO and other offals. There was no risk of SBO being mixed with other offal but the possibility of leakage of SBO fluids across bays was noted in three premises. In one plant, it was noted that the same tractor bucket was being used for SBO and non-SBO material; and
5. considerable variation was noted in the processing techniques being used to render the SBO. ¹⁹

4.168 Mr Hutchins reported that in plants where both SBO and other offal were handled, cleaning procedures varied widely. Ten premises handling SBO and non-SBO material used common pre-heating equipment and nine used common rendering equipment. In some, careful consideration was given to the issue of cross-contamination. In others, the issue did not appear to have been addressed at all. The various approaches identified included the following:

1. no cleaning;
2. physical sweeping or raking;
3. steam cleaning and/or disinfection; and
4. treating the next load after an SBO load as SBO. ²⁰

4.169 Mr Hutchins's summary described the uses of tallow, which included 'edible tallow, animal feed, technical grade tallow, industrial uses (unspecified), soap production, poultry feed, fuel and sale to brokers (ultimate use unknown)'. The report stated that there 'was little evidence to suggest that tallow produced from SBOs was handled separately from tallow produced from other offals'. There were no reports of a build-up of SBO derived meal as it was largely buried, used as fertiliser or stockpiled. ²¹

4.170 Fifteen collection centres were identified in the summary, although it was recognised that this may have represented an underestimate of the true number, as it appeared likely that the smaller, non-dedicated premises, such as knacker's yards, had not been included in the count. Identification and separation of SBOs at these premises was described as 'generally satisfactory', although 'occasional incidents' of indirect contact between SBO and other offal were reported. ²²

4.171 Mrs Attridge said in a statement to us:

. . . these [reports] did not indicate any major problems other than the obvious one of uneven general standards which was being addressed through consideration of a uniform meat hygiene service. ²³

The use of tallow in animal feed

4.172 The process by which animal waste is rendered to produce tallow is described in vol. 13: Industry, Process and Controls. Tallow is the primary product of rendering. Essentially, rendering involves crushing animal by-products (eg, fat, bones and internal organs), heating them to drive off the water content and then separating the residue into fat (generally called 'tallow') and solids (known as 'greaves'). The circumstances in which the Government sought advice from SEAC regarding the safety of tallow in general is considered in detail in vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood. For the purposes of this volume we will limit our consideration to tallow derived from SBOs. Following the introduction of the animal SBO ban, SBO-derived tallow was not prohibited for inclusion in animal feed as it was not regarded as falling within the definition of 'animal protein ' despite containing very small levels of protein. Two papers on tallow were considered by SEAC at its meetings of 1 November 1990 and 7 March 1991 respectively (see vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood). The first paper noted that:

In the light of epidemiological evidence and the various measures taken to deal with BSE, it has not been considered necessary to impose restrictions on the use of tallow in rations for ruminants and other animals, birds or poultry. Neither has it been considered necessary to ban the use of tallow produced from specified bovine offal in feed rations. Most of this latter material is processed in one plant and is used for industrial purposes.

²⁴

4.173 Having considered the paper, SEAC did not feel there was an urgent need to consider any risks associated with the use of tallow. However, it requested further information on the use of tallow derived from cattle and from scrapie infected sheep. ²⁵

4.174 The second paper that SEAC considered at its meeting on 7 March 1991 explained that 'historically' about 10 per cent of the raw material used in the production of tallow had come from knacker's yards and hunt kennels, which handled fallen or casualty animals. ²⁶

4.175 Of the 250,000 tonnes of tallow produced each year, the paper stated that 75,000 - 100,000 tonnes, mostly lower grade, was used in animal feed. Of this, 5,000 tonnes was used in cattle and calf rations. The paper informed SEAC that samples analysed at one of the major rendering plants indicated maximum levels of 0.1-0.3 per cent protein in tallow intended for animal feed (see Chapter 2 for further discussion on the inclusion of tallow in animal feed).

4.176 In terms of the potential for protein to find its way into feed grade tallow, the paper stated:

It is just conceivable that feed grade tallow might contain protein, but in view of the four filtrations and blendings the quantities would be minute. The possible presence of the BSE agent as a result of any minute quantities of protein in tallow was considered in the previous paper [presented to the Committee at its meeting in November 1990]. It suggested that it would be in such small quantities that neither infection nor disease would be possible. It is considered that the same would apply to tallow derived from specified bovine offal, not only because of filtration and blending but also because well over 80% of the raw material will be from cattle which have not been exposed to the agent. In any case the UK Renderers Association confirm that all the 10-20,000 tonnes of tallow derived from this market is used for industrial purposes. ²⁷

4.177 SEAC concluded that it was:

reassured by the evidence that the protein content of tallow was very low and that MAFF did not believe that tallow derived from specified offals was likely to reach the food chain. . . . On the basis of the available evidence, it was not appropriate to offer specific advice on tallow. ²⁸

4.178 Following further inquiries into the use of tallow, Mr Hutchins circulated a minute within MAFF on 3 June 1991. He noted that it was 'now stated that no SBO-derived tallow is used in the preparation of human foodstuffs (apparently an error in the original report)', but that it was used in three cases for animal feed production. Mr Hutchins noted that in other premises SBO-derived tallow was used for chemical or manufacturing purposes, or was disposed of with other SBO-derived material. ²⁹

SVS visits continue

4.179 Mr Hutchins circulated the next summary of visits to rendering plants and collection centres on 25 June 1991. The summary did not differ materially from the previous report. Minor differences in the number of infringements were identified, including the lack of reports on the leakage of fluids between bays. In respect of the use of tallow derived from SBO, Mr Hutchins recorded that there were no further developments since the circulation of his minute dated 3 June. He noted that it was too early to tell whether the material would continue to be used in animal feedstuffs. ³⁰

4.180 In July 1991 Mr Alick Simmons succeeded Mr Hutchins as the SVO responsible for red meat hygiene. It was he who, on 2 September 1991, prepared and distributed the next summary of returns from rendering plants and collection centres. It repeated the previous report's statement that awareness of BSE legislation remained high. Whilst most premises were using separate marked bins and containers for SBO, some larger premises were using a separate vehicle or skip due to the amount of material involved. Separation of SBO was described as 'generally good' with one plant disinfecting and degreasing bays after the removal of SBO to prevent leakage. Eleven plants continued to use common pre-heating equipment for SBO and non-SBO material, while nine used common rendering equipment. Procedures for cleaning processing equipment continued to vary widely from 'there being none, through physical sweeping or raking, to steam cleaning and/or disinfection'. ³¹

4.181 Reports on the use of tallow (see vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood for details) made no mention of their use in animal feedstuffs (a practice mentioned in previous reports), but noted that most tallow was sold via brokers for industrial use, technical uses and soap manufacture. Fourteen collection centres were identified, although, as previously, it was stated that this might have been an underestimate. Identification and separation of SBO at collection centres seemed to be satisfactory with 'good awareness of the legislative requirements being reported'. There was only one report of material arriving at a collection centre inadequately stained - a matter which was taken up with the appropriate local authority. ³²

Code of Practice for renderers on the handling of SBO

4.182 Despite the generally positive tenor of the SVS returns, disquiet existed within MAFF about what was happening in rendering plants. The day after distribution of this latest summary of returns, Mr Meldrum wrote to Mr Crawford, on 3 September 1991, expressing his concern about plants where both SBO and normal offal were being rendered. ³³ In particular, he was concerned that in some situations there would be no purging of the rendering system between runs. He requested that the relevant information be reviewed by Mr Simmons and that draft procedures ensuring that there was no cross-contamination in the processing plants be prepared for his consideration. Mr Meldrum's intervention led to the preparation of a Code of Practice for renderers.

4.183 In accordance with Mr Meldrum's request, Mr Simmons examined the methods used to prevent cross-contamination between SBO and other material at rendering plants and submitted a report to Mr Crawford on 16 October 1991. ³⁴ It identified 13 rendering plants that were processing both SBO and non-SBO material. Mr Simmons stated:

There is potential for cross-contamination at all stages of the process described . . . but the risk appears greatest when common equipment is used to prepare the material prior to cooking. Machinery such as macerators and augers have a large number of moving parts and as a consequence they are difficult to clean. In general, attempts are made to clean the equipment before it is used for non-SBO material but no plants are reported to dismantle equipment between batches. However, this type of machinery, particularly augers, is prone to 'dead spots' in which material accumulates; this can only be removed if it is dismantled prior to thorough cleaning.

. . .

It is clear that the procedures are not wholly effective in preventing cross-contamination. The amount of infectious agent, if any, reaching susceptible animals through contamination of animal protein feed with SBO will be very small. However, it is important to avoid complacency; the risk may be impossible to quantify but that does not justify abandoning attempts to reduce it. Nevertheless, it is important that the risk is kept in perspective.

The introduction of legislative controls to ensure separation between SBO and other material at rendering plants would not only be resisted by the rendering industry but would draw the attention of the public to the BSE issue at the time when a fall in the numbers of reported cases is expected. SBO and material derived from SBO would be perceived as akin to toxic waste and we may be forced into imposing a requirement to incinerate.

In my opinion, such a measure would be unjustified. I recommend an approach where a Code of Practice is issued to the rendering industry including advice on methods and practices which reduce the risk of animal protein being contaminated with SBO. ³⁵

4.184 Mr Simmons annexed a draft Code of Practice and a draft covering letter to be sent to renderers. ³⁶

4.185 The draft Code of Practice was 'subject to an internal and external consultation procedure'. ³⁷ This included a copy of it being issued to the renderers' trade association, UKRA, who circulated it to members for consideration. ³⁸ Their comments on the Code are considered below at paragraphs 4.179-4.201.

The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991

4.186 On 20 September 1991 Mr Lowson forwarded a submission to Mr Gummer inviting him to sign the 1991 Order. The main objective was to consolidate existing BSE legislation. In addition, the Order sought to implement advice from SEAC that SBO-derived protein material 'could not be recommended' for use as fertiliser, ³⁹ and to correct 'some minor' errors in earlier legislation.

4.187 Article 9 of the 1991 Order was designed to implement the recommendation from SEAC by regulating disposal of protein derived from SBO. The submission to the Minister explained that three options had been recommended by SEAC:

- disposal on licensed landfill sites;

- incineration;

- other methods covered by a licence issued by MAFF.

As envisaged disposal on licensed landfill sites and by incineration would therefore have been exempt from licensing requirements. However, having considered this further officials have concluded that this would not give us sufficient control over the disposal of this material; it would not be easy to answer questions about how we know what was happening to the material. It is therefore recommended that all movement of protein derived from specified bovine offal be under licence. We envisage that, as far as the small number of renderers in fact involved in processing specified offals are concerned, this would be done by a general licence embodying requirements about record-keeping. Such an approach will help to indicate how much material is disposed of and where without being a serious administrative burden. ⁴⁰

4.188 In relation to the corrections to earlier legislation the submission noted:

Because of the speed with which the BSE (No. 2) Amendment Order 1990 was brought in to prohibit the use of specified bovine offals in any animal feed two minor errors crept in . . .

Neither of these have had any effect in practice. Nevertheless the new Order would correct both these points. ⁴¹

4.189 It continued:

Local authority bodies and interested organisations have been consulted/informed. It is recommended that a short news release be issued focussing primarily on the ban on the use of protein derived from specified bovine offals as a fertiliser. ⁴²

4.190 The conditions of the movement licence attached to the submission required information on the date of the movement, the weight of the SBO both before and after processing, and the destination of the consignment being a landfill site (licensed by the local authority), an incineration plant (licensed by the local authority) or other authorised destination. ⁴³

4.191 The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991 (the 1991 Order) came into force on 6 November 1991. ⁴⁴ The 1991 Order consolidated all the existing BSE legislation for the protection of animal health. The new Order also corrected the two errors which had been identified in the 1990 Order. This involved amending the definition of SBO so as to include SBO derived from animals that had 'died' in the UK (see section on monitoring of knacker's yards and hunt kennels), and limiting the scope of the ruminant feed ban (see Chapter 2). ⁴⁵ Furthermore, a new article 9 prohibited the movement of any SBO-derived protein except under licence. It provided:

No person shall remove from any premises any protein which is derived from any specified bovine offal, except under the authority of a licence issued by an officer of the appropriate Minister and in accordance with any conditions subject to which the licence is issued. ⁴⁶

4.192 On 30 October 1991 AHC 91/93 was issued to all SVS veterinary and technical staff including HQ staff enclosing a copy of the new legislation. The circular explained that the new Order effectively prohibited the use of SBO-derived material for use as fertiliser by permitting the movement of such material only under licence issued by MAFF. Licensing would require an initial visit by an AHO to the processing plant to determine the destination of the material and a telephone call to the relevant waste disposal authority in order to confirm the destination to ensure it could accept organic waste. Quarterly visits to renderers would also be required to check records and twice-yearly visits to destinations of SBO-derived protein would be required to corroborate details and to ensure meal is destroyed on site. ⁴⁷

SVS monitoring continues

4.193 Meanwhile, the SVS monitoring programme continued and, on 13 November 1991, Mr Simmons circulated another report on rendering plants and collection centres covering the previous two months. ⁴⁸ He advised that the position remained 'relatively unchanged' from previous reports, but that a new format had been adopted for the summary. Mr Simmons noted that 'handling and processing appears to be carried out responsibly and separation of SBO from other material is satisfactory', yet procedures varied considerably from plant to plant. On tallow he said:

There is no indication that any tallow produced from SBO is used for animal feed or human consumption but as the usual brokers are cited as the destination of the tallow it is not possible to establish the ultimate destination from these reports. ⁴⁹

4.194 Mr Simmons noted that whilst the majority of premises were disposing of SBO-derived material in landfills, two renderers were stockpiling the material while another two plants were disposing of it on arable land, one, by selling it as fertiliser and the other, by ploughing it into its own arable land in contravention of the 1991 BSE Order. Mr Simmons also questioned the legality of stockpiling SBO.

4.195 Mr Crawford responded to Mr Simmons's query on 3 December 1991. Following clarification from the policy division, he confirmed that:

The 1991 Order (Article 9) prohibits, except under licence, SBO protein from being removed from any premises. SBO protein may therefore be stockpiled on site. Off-site stockpiling would require a licence issued by MAFF as would subsequent movement from both stockpiles. ⁵⁰

4.196 In an unrelated summary of reports on knackeries and hunt kennels in December, Mr Simmons noted that 'the ban on the use of processed specified bovine offal as fertiliser has rendered the entire production of meat and bonemeal unusable as SBO is not kept separate'. ⁵¹

Consideration of the Draft Code of Practice

4.197 As part of the consultation process on the draft code of practice for renderers, on 3 January 1992, Mr Edward Metcalfe of Fats & Proteins (UK) Ltd, a rendering company, responded to Mr Alan Sadler, the Secretary of UKRA:

How we as renderers can be expected to monitor both unstained and often very poorly segregated material defies me. We are expected to be able to judge if a set of tonsils or intestines, etc are from an animal of 5 or 7 months of age and then take the appropriate action. We provide well identifiable containers and still the abattoirs can get the material mixed up. ⁵²

4.198 On 9 January 1992 Mr Sadler wrote to Mr Meldrum attaching a copy of Mr Metcalfe's letter. ⁵³ Mr Sadler asked Mr Meldrum to prepare his own comments in response to the points in Mr Metcalfe's letter and to provide these to UKRA in writing for its forthcoming Technical Committee meeting on 30 January 1992. Mr Meldrum replied on 27 January 1992, briefly explaining the background to the introduction of the SBO ban and the reasons for particular tissues being subject to the ban. ⁵⁴ Mr Sadler reported the conclusions of the Technical Committee to Mr Maslin on 12 February 1992, explaining that 'where the full and complete responsibility for segregation of the material was attributed to Renderers, [it] was not only unacceptable but is also impractical'. He noted that other sectors of the industry that supplied SBO needed to be covered by similar codes of practice. He also attached an amended code of practice reflecting their concerns. ⁵⁵

4.199 On 2 March 1992 Mr Maslin wrote to Mr Sadler regarding the draft Code of Practice. He said:

We are not at the moment considering similar codes for other parts of the industry. That does not however mean that the legislation on SBO is being less strictly applied. ⁵⁶

4.200 Mr Sadler later wrote, on behalf of UKRA, endorsing and supporting the publication of the draft Code of Practice. ⁵⁷

4.201 The issue of cross-contamination between SBO and non-SBO runs at rendering plants was raised by a VO in December 1991. He wrote to Dr Matthews following a renderer's request to begin processing SBO. He reported that the rendering plants' proposal, to flush the system with a limited amount of ordinary offals, did not appear adequate to prevent cross-contamination between SBO and non-SBO runs. He suggested that the operator could be informed that his proposed methods of preventing cross-contamination were unsatisfactory, and point out that it would be an offence to claim that the material was free of SBO. However, Mr Simmons's reply on 31 January 1992 noted that it would be 'imprudent for MAFF to attempt to prevent' the operator from processing SBO. He suggested that, until such time as the Code of Practice was issued, the operator should be provided with practical advice on how to minimise cross-contamination. ⁵⁸

SVS monitoring continues

4.202 Mr Simmons's next summary of returns on renderers and collection centres on 31 January 1992 was largely unchanged from the report of 13 November 1991, except to say that those plants stockpiling SBO-derived material were considering alternatives and no plants were disposing of processed SBO onto arable land or by sale in fertiliser. ⁵⁹

4.203 This picture was repeated when Mr Simmons's next summary of returns was circulated on 10 April 1992. The only material difference from the previous report was that the amount of SBO-derived material being stockpiled was declining. In reiterating that there was a considerable variation in handling and processing procedures at rendering plants, Mr Simmons added:

The Code of Practice on the Handling of Specified Bovine Offal at Rendering Plants, recently agreed by the UKRA, should clarify our policy with respect to the separation of the material in these plants, and should, where appropriate, facilitate exports of meat and bone meal where this is processed at the same plant. ⁶⁰

The use of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed is considered

4.204 On 9 April 1992 a joint meeting took place, attended by members of the Lamming Committee and members of SEAC. One of the matters raised for discussion at the meeting was the use of tallow from SBO. In the course of the discussion Dr Tyrrell said:

The Committee [SEAC] had been content with the situation with regard to tallow derived from specified bovine offals, as they had been informed that all such tallow was being used for industrial purposes rather than for animal feed. ⁶¹

4.205 The minutes record that Mr M Maclean, a member of the Lamming Committee, felt that:

. . . this could only be said with any certainty in relation to Prosper De Mulder, which had a plant dedicated to processing specified offals. Mr Lowson confirmed that tallow from specified bovine offals could still be legally fed to animals, as the ban only covered the offals themselves or protein derived from them. ⁶²

4.206 At SEAC's meeting on 28 April 1992, the Committee was presented with a draft minute of the meeting with the Lamming Committee. This led to further discussion of the matters which had been discussed at that meeting. The minutes of SEAC's meeting record that, on tallow:

. . . the Committee's view that further restrictions were not needed has been based on assurances from MAFF that tallow derived from SBOs did not get into the food chain. The Lamming Group would need to satisfy itself that this was the case. It might be appropriate for MAFF to explore the issue further to produce evidence which could reassure the Group on this point. ⁶³

4.207 SEAC considered a further MAFF paper on the production of tallow at its next meeting on 15 October 1992. The paper began by saying that, although SEAC had considered tallow in some detail previously and had not requested any further information, the Committee might be interested in additional information gained as a result of a visit to one of the largest tallow blenders in the UK. At the meeting with MAFF, the tallow blending company had confirmed that the figures for the inclusion of tallow in animal feed, provided to SEAC by Mr Lawrence in March 1991, correctly reflected the position. In respect of the production of tallow from SBO the paper stated:

About 12,000 tonnes of tallow derived from SBOs is produced annually. The UKRA has always claimed that none of it enters the animal feed chain. The problem, as has been identified in reports from the field service (who visit rendering plants on a regular basis, principally to check on the production and disposal of meal derived from SBOs) is that some renderers simply state that the tallow is sold to blenders, brokers or traders. In the circumstances they cannot, with hand on heart, possibly know where the material ends up. However all the evidence points to the fact that those involved in the trade know about SBOs and are ensuring that such tallow goes for chemical use. And in practice most of the tallow derived from SBOs (produced by the major renderer in the UK) is sold direct to chemical companies. ⁶⁴

4.208 The minute of SEAC's meeting records that:

In general the Committee saw no problem with the use of tallow of bovine origin for any outlet. However, they noted that tallow derived from specified bovine offals was excluded from human food. As the BSE epidemic declined, it would be necessary to deal with every possibility that the infective agent might be sustained. So even though the risk that the presence of infectivity was slight, it would make sense to bring the rules about the use of SBO-derived tallow for animal consumption into line with those that applied to human consumption. ⁶⁵ [See vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood]

Mr Lawrence raises further concerns

4.209 Despite the tone of the earlier reports, on 5 June 1992 Mr Lawrence reported to Mr Crawford:

. . . I have received three phone calls in the last two days all alleging that SBOs are being processed as non-SBO material and that the resultant meat and bonemeal is being used in feedstuffs . . .

There have been a number of allegations made about this in the period since the use of SBOs (and meat and bonemeal derived from it) was proscribed in 1990. However, we have not had so many in such a short space of time. One suggestion is that the current market position has tempted more operators to go outside the law; meat and bonemeal prices are up to £150 a tonne and there is a shortage of material. ⁶⁶

The Code of Practice is issued to renderers

4.210 On 7 August 1992 the 'Code of Practice for the Handling of Specified Bovine Offals (SBO) at Rendering Plants' was issued to SVS staff as an annex to AHC 92/94. ⁶⁷ DVOs were asked to distribute the Code of Practice to all rendering plants in their division and, during regular visits to plants, to ensure that the Code was fully understood and applied by plant management and staff. A notable difference between the final version of the Code of Practice and the initial draft prepared by Mr Simmons was the removal of references to 'cross-contamination' of other protein with SBO in favour of the term of 'comminglement'. Mr Simmons suggested this change after both Mr Davies and Mr K Taylor ⁶⁸ had expressed concern over the use of the word 'cross-contamination'. ⁶⁹

4.211 The Code of Practice stated that:

. . . renderers have a responsibility to [ensure] that their procedures for transportation, storage, handling and processing of SBO are correctly undertaken and thus minimise the risk of possible comminglement with their other productions of animal proteins, particularly where both categories of material are processed on the same site . . . The purpose of this 'Code of Practice' is therefore both to provide guidance and also set out acceptable methods that will best minimise any risk. ⁷⁰

4.212 The Code of Practice advised that the best method of avoiding 'comminglement' was to use separate facilities for the processing of SBO material. However, it recognised that this would not be possible in many cases, and advised the following specific measures:

1. Dedicated, easy to clean and clearly marked storage facilities for SBO should be used. Where this was not possible, facilities needed to be thoroughly cleaned before being used for non-SBO material.
2. During storage SBO must not be allowed to come into contact with any other materials. Overfilling of SBO containers should be avoided.
3. Preferably, separate tools and mechanical equipment should be used for handling and processing SBO and the processed SBO.
4. Equipment used solely for SBO should be clearly marked. Where separate equipment could not be provided items should be thoroughly cleansed before use with other materials.
5. In respect of cooking equipment, where separate facilities were not available equipment should be cleansed to remove all traces of SBO (this would involve dismantling the equipment), or purged twice with sufficient material to remove the traces of SBO. All material used during the purging of the machines should then be treated as SBO.
6. Processed SBO should be stored in dedicated separate, leak-proof, easily cleanable facilities. ⁷¹

4.213 As well as enclosing the Code of Practice, AHC 92/94 also described reports from industry that SBO was not always being kept separate from other material in slaughterhouses and during transport to renderers 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. Upon reaching the renderer, SBO had to be processed separately and the 'resulting meat and bonemeal disposed of, under licence, in a proper manner'. The circular noted that the licence authorising the movement of protein derived from SBO included the requirements for the date of movement, the weight of SBO and SBO-derived protein before and after processing and the destination of the consignment. The conditions of movement licences were to be 'extended to include information about the origin of the raw material'. This information was to be verified by spot checks at any premises where SBO was produced, including slaughterhouses, knacker's yards and hunt kennels. ⁷²

4.214 In relation to rendering plants, the AHC stated that checks were to be carried out 'from time to time' to compare the weight of SBO raw material input and MBM yield. The AHC recorded that experts in the rendering industry estimated that the protein yield would be about 25 per cent of the original weight and any 'major discrepancies would justify follow-up action'. ⁷³

SVS visits continue

4.215 There are no reports available on handling of SBO at renderers and collection centres for the period from May 1992 to September 1992.

4.216 The next summary of returns was circulated by Mr Simmons on 16 December 1992, covering the previous two months. Little appeared to have changed from earlier reports which we have seen, although few renderers were now reported to be either stockpiling or incinerating MBM derived from SBO. Mr Simmons did, however, express his concern that '[Head Office] is not gaining a complete picture of SBO disposal', and enclosed a draft replacement AHC and pro forma for consideration. ⁷⁴ The draft AHC marked the initiation of a review by Mr Simmons of the system of monitoring the SBO controls which culminated in the issue of a new set of instructions to field staff in early 1993. See paragraph 4.255. This will be discussed further below, following a review of the information received up to January 1993 about knacker's yards and hunt kennels.

Animal By-Products Order 1992

4.217 The Animal By-Products Order 1992 came into force on 1 January 1993. It implemented EC Council Directive 90/667 ⁷⁵ and set out veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste. ⁷⁶ The Order provided that animal 'by-products', including fallen animals and animals killed in the context of disease control measures, had to be disposed of by rendering in approved premises, incineration or burial. ⁷⁷ The Order also introduced a requirement that premises used for rendering should meet certain operating and hygiene standards and should be approved in writing by the Minister. Similar controls were also introduced for hunt kennels and maggot bait farms. ⁷⁸

4.218 SBO was later expressly excluded from the operation of the Animal By-Products Order by the Animal By-Products (Amendment) Order 1996 which came into force on 8 April 1996. ⁷⁹