Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
1993 - A new system of monitoring: Mr Simmons's 'cradle to grave' approach
Monitoring in slaughterhouses, collection centres and rendering plants under the 'cradle to grave' approach
Monitoring of knacker's yards and hunt kennels from January 1993
Other developments in 1993
Reports from industry: 'things are not as they should be'

4.253 In his summary of returns on rendering plants and collection centres dated 16 December 1992, Mr Simmons recorded his concern that MAFF Headquarters was not 'gaining a complete picture of SBO disposal'. ¹ In particular, Mr Simmons was concerned that the information in the returns did not 'provide a complete picture of the handling and ultimate disposal of SBO, ie. from "cradle to grave" '. He proposed that new instructions should be issued to SVS staff in the field, calling for returns every two months, to cover the handling of SBO in the slaughterhouse through to the licensed disposal of SBO-derived protein. This 'cradle to grave' approach would enable the ultimate destination of SBO-derived protein to be determined:

In my opinion, such an instruction would not add to the workload of field staff as the information is already available from routine visits made for the purposes of AHC 91/9 (every two months), sampling under the Protein Animal [Processing] Order (20 days sampling/year) or slaughterhouse visits (it is proposed to visit at least quarterly from 1 January 1993). In any case, field staff are under instruction to check on SBO handling whilst making unannounced visits to slaughterhouses (AHC 91/61) and to issue licenses under Article 9 of the BSE Order 1991 (AHC 92/94). ²

4.254 Mr Crawford said in oral evidence to the Inquiry:

We were getting the information on the various parts of the chain, but this I think was the first time that it was suggested that we should have a unified report, so that was overlaid with the other reports we were receiving. ³

4.255 Mr Simmons's suggestions were implemented by AHC 93/32, distributed to all RVOs and DVOs on 14 April 1993. The circular stated that reports generated by the AHCs, while providing valuable information, did not provide a complete picture of the collection, handling and disposal of SBO from the slaughterhouse through to ultimate disposal. A new pro forma (Form MH6) had been produced, to extend the scope of the return to cover all aspects of SBO handling from the slaughterhouse to final disposal by the renderer. Form MH6 consisted of a separate page for each of 'slaughterhouses', 'collecting centres', 'rendering plants' and 'disposal of protein derived from SBO'. It sought details of failures by slaughterhouses to meet SBO controls, including confirmation that SBO was adequately separated from other material during transport from the slaughterhouse. It also required specification of the destination of the SBO. For collection centres, Form MH6 required details of how SBO was stored, confirmation that it was separated from other material in a satisfactory fashion and details of the destination of the SBO. For rendering plants, Form MH6 required details of any non-compliance with the renderers' Code of Practice. It also required details of the use of any tallow produced. Details of the destination of any protein derived from SBO were also required. ⁴

Monitoring in slaughterhouses, collection centres and rendering plants under the 'cradle to grave' approach

4.256 The first summary of returns produced pursuant to AHC 93/32 on the handling and disposal of SBO from 'cradle to grave' was circulated within MAFF by Mr Simmons on 7 July 1993. The report stated that of the 320 slaughterhouses visited during the period, all were complying with the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 and that separation of SBO was reported as satisfactory. In respect of collection centres, separation of SBO and other waste was reported as satisfactory in all but one plant. All of the rendering plants that handled SBO were complying with the relevant Code of Practice, except for one, where there was 'some leakage of effluent between SBO and other waste'. In that case, 'improvements' were planned to rectify the situation. ⁵

4.257 Mr Simmons produced the second summary of the 'cradle to grave' returns on 5 October 1993. Mr Simmons said that, in general, returns indicated satisfactory practices at all stages. Of the 342 slaughterhouses visited, all but four were complying with the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989. The infringements were described as being of 'a minor nature (eg. failure to stain all SBO [or] failure to identify SBO bins satisfactorily)'. In all cases, local authorities were said to have taken remedial action once the problems were brought to their attention. Separation of SBO from other material during transport from the slaughterhouse was said to be satisfactory. ⁶

4.258 On 7 December 1993 Mr Simmons again reported on the collection, handling and disposal of SBO. Mr Simmons stated that the returns indicated that, in general, practices were satisfactory at all stages. All but one of the 300 or so slaughterhouses visited were reportedly complying with the Regulations. The infringement reported was in a small slaughterhouse, where two bovine heads were found in a bin of 'other waste'. The local authority took immediate remedial action once the problem was brought to its attention. Separation of SBO from other material during transport from the slaughterhouse was reported as satisfactory. In all but one of the collection centres, separation of SBO from other waste was reported as satisfactory. A temporary delay in onward consignment of material meant a risk of comminglement of 'other wastes and SBO'. This had been resolved at the time of writing. All but one of the rendering plants handling SBO were reported to be complying with the Code of Practice. The one problem plant, which had previously been cited for leakage of SBO into other material, had been granted planning consent to build a wall that would ensure complete separation of unprocessed SBO from other waste. Construction had begun. The reports recorded that all tallow produced from SBO, other than a small amount that was incinerated, was sold to brokers. ⁷

Monitoring of knacker's yards and hunt kennels from January 1993

4.259 Four reports were prepared by Mr Simmons on the handling of animal waste at knackers and hunts pursuant to AHC 92/147 from April to December 1993. The reports recorded that the cost of disposal of SBO from knackers and hunts had stabilised at between £0 and £90 per tonne. The reports did not provide any details of the handling of SBO at these premises. ⁸ No further returns from SVS visits to knacker's yards or hunt kennels are available from December 1993.

Other developments in 1993

The use of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed

4.260 Following the advice from SEAC, in October 1992, that the use of tallow derived from SBO material should be banned in animal feed (see paragraph 4.208 above), an initial submission to implement this recommendation was put to Mr Nicholas Soames, Parliamentary Secretary (Commons), on 25 February 1993. ⁹ The submission covered both the inclusion of tallow generally and SBO-derived tallow in particular. It recommended that Ministers ban the use of all material derived from SBOs in animal feed. At that time, the animal SBO ban prevented the inclusion of SBOs and protein derived from SBOs in animal feed. ¹⁰ Accordingly, it was legally possible for non-proteinaceous material derived from SBO to be included in animal feed.

4.261 At a meeting with Mr Soames on 23 March 1993, officials outlined SEAC's recommendation that tallow from SBOs should be excluded from animal feed. It was proposed to achieve this through an amendment to the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991 banning the use of all material derived from SBOs in animal feed. Mr Soames agreed that this was 'totally defensible and a prudent course of action to take'. ¹¹

4.262 On 29 July 1993 Mr Martin Haddon, Head of the Animal Health and Veterinary Group, sought Mr Soames's agreement to the implementation arrangements for the proposed amendment. Mr Haddon noted that the amendment to exclude SBO-derived tallow from animal feed required notification to the EC Commission, which necessitated an 'obligatory minimum standstill period'. ¹² A manuscript note on this submission dated 2 August 1993 records that Mr Soames was content with the recommendations made. ¹³

4.263 On 9 November 1993, MAFF issued a consultation letter to industry organisations about the proposed Miscellaneous Amendments Order. ¹⁴

4.264 UKRA held a council meeting on 15 December 1993 to discuss the situation on SBO and the proposed legislation. Minutes of the meeting record that:

. . . initially there was no adverse reaction to the draft in the last two weeks, two UK Brokers were now asking for guarantees that the tallow to be supplied did not originate from SBO material. ¹⁵

4.265 The issue of SBO-derived tallow was considered in the more general context of problems with SBOs. Discussion turned to consideration of a 'discussion note on the situation re: S.B.O.' which had been prepared for the meeting. The note set out the issues for discussion and possible options to address the problems:

Problem – SBO regs not working? Renderers not sure if materials are SBO or not. Regulation of input and output etc is voluntary. MAFF do not seem concerned or bother to enforce. Why? Ruminant recycling ban – this is main safeguard say MAFF. ¹⁶

4.266 Mr Stephen Woodgate, formerly of Prosper De Mulder (PDM), when asked in oral evidence whether the second paragraph of this minute represented his views at the time, said:

. . . my feelings were that MAFF felt that [the SBO ban] was lower down the list of key issues; the top, key issue, was ruminant recycling ban in the prevention of BSE. The SBO ban was something, I believe, they felt was sort of important but, at the time, I do not think they really understood or realised how important SBOs were. ¹⁷

4.267 The note continued:

Options.

. . .

(d) . . . it is effectively impossible for renderers to guarantee 100% segregation, particularly if not done effectively at abattoir. ¹⁸

4.268 Mr Gary Seymour, an assistant County Trading Standards Officer in Lincolnshire since 1990, said in oral evidence to the Inquiry:

. . . it would be unreasonable to expect the rendering plant to sort through material coming into the plant to check whether there was SBO in it. It really had to be done earlier than that. ¹⁹

4.269 It was agreed at the meeting that 'Renderers could not be, and should not [be] held to be, responsible for determining what was or was not SBO material' and that a meeting should be arranged with Mrs Gillian Shephard, ²⁰ the new Minister of Agriculture, to discuss the issue 'at the earliest possible time'. ²¹

4.270 In a statement to the Inquiry, Mr Meldrum noted:

Some of the responses received from the industry raised concerns about failures by renderers to dispose of SBOs properly and that tallow produced from SBO might be finding its way into the human food chain. Meetings were set up with the industry to discuss these concerns, one with the feed fat industry on 18th January 1994 and another with UKRA on 21st January 1994. ²²

4.271 Following these two meetings and problems brought to light by the industry on the use of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed, ²³ the matter was reconsidered by SEAC at its meetings in 1994. See paragraphs 4.204-4.208 below and vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood.

Reports from industry: 'things are not as they should be'

4.272 Despite the encouraging reports from the SVS under the new system of returns, MAFF continued to receive reports of non-compliance. In oral evidence to the Inquiry Mr Meldrum explained the problem MAFF faced in receiving such varying reports from different sources:

. . . I was receiving information from trade sources, from the field, that things were not as they should be...We had to work on the basis of the information we received, be it formally from audit or informally from information I received. ²⁴

4.273 Mr Meldrum endeavoured to explain the source of the problem:

What was going wrong, quite clearly, was there was not the degree of supervision of - not separation but staining of this material that we would have liked. When you are carrying out spot checks, whilst the responsibility lies elsewhere, with local authorities, you are reliant upon the slaughterhouse owner to comply, the local authority to keep an eye on what is going on and to ensure separation and staining; and then the spot checks that we would do from time to time. Now, I do not know now what else I could have done at the time to have changed that situation, because it was a structural problem, relating to the structure of the industry and local authority involvement. ²⁵

4.274 Mr Crawford also explained that despite the positive tenor of the SVS returns, MAFF was receiving less encouraging reports from industry sources:

Reports were becoming more regular from sources that there was a problem. For what reason I am not sure. I cannot believe that there was one particular reason for it . . . The information I was given was from extremely reliable sources...The allegations were that material was arriving at the renderers unstained, so we were going to look at those points. If the SBOs were not being stained in the abattoirs, then they would arrive at the renderers unstained, so obviously if we went to the renderers, we would see whether anything was arriving from abattoirs. ²⁶