Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Developments in 1994
Mr Simmons's summary of the 'February visits'

4.275 Failure to stain SBO was not the only problem reported. On 19 January 1994 Mr Simmons minuted Mr Baker regarding further allegations that SBO had been disposed of incorrectly at two slaughterhouses. Whilst visits to the relevant slaughterhouses had failed to confirm the allegations, Mr Simmons stated:

If we continue to receive criticism about SBO disposal we may have to review our surveillance. For example, we could initiate an audit of weight of SBO noted on the movement permit, compared with the weight of SBO that would be expected to be produced from the kill period under investigation. However, this is likely to meet some resistance from LAs. ¹

4.276 Mr Simmons's minute was copied to Dr Matthews who, on 20 January 1994, responded with the following suggestion:

I think we should audit records at the renderers, however, compare total input of raw material in January 1994 versus January 1993 for example, and relate to output of finished SBO meat and bone meal for disposal - this would not require LA involvement. ²

4.277 These concerns prompted further action from MAFF. Mr Meldrum noted in his statement that:

As a result of the concerns that had been raised by the industry since the issue of the consultation letter in November 1993, and following reports from UKRA that SBOs were arriving at renderers unstained, Mr Crawford issued a minute dated 1 February 1994 to all RVOs in England, Scotland and Wales . . . ³

4.278 Mr Crawford advised the RVOs:

As you know, there is a requirement for staff to make regular visits to abattoirs and processing plants to review arrangements for the safe separation, handling and disposal of specified bovine offal.

It seems that some of our staff are giving advance notice of intended visits to plants. Obviously this allows the operator to ensure that, at the time of the visit, everything is being done that should be done. We are aware that there are deficiencies which need to be addressed and may have been missed by some of our staff in the course of their routine visits. For example, we have been informed by UKRA (United Kingdom Renderers Association) that SBOs arrive unstained at processing plants. We have also been informed that, although SBOs are placed in separate bins at the abattoir, the bins are not marked. This matters little if the whole of the consignment on a vehicle is delivered to a plant which only handles SBOs. Where it processes a mixture of product, there is the potential for SBOs being processed with other material.

Because of this concern, it has been decided that all plants processing specified bovine offals should be visited during the month of February, unannounced, and a full and detailed report provided. All reports should be submitted to Mr Simmons . . . by Friday, 11 March at the latest. Meat hygiene VOs should also be reminded of the need to review arrangements for the separation of SBOs in abattoirs, any deficiencies brought to the notice of operators and a report submitted to Mr Simmons . . . ⁴

4.279 Mr Crawford explained in oral evidence that the reason why these instructions were limited to rendering plants processing SBO was that:

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. ⁵

4.280 Mrs Brown said in a statement to the Inquiry:

In considering the need to intensify the level of monitoring we did not rely solely on the results of the visits carried out by SVS field staff which were reassuring. Rather we took account of all the information reaching us from external sources, some of which suggested that there was a need to probe more deeply. ⁶

4.281 On 7 March 1994 Mr Andrew Scott of E D & F Man Ltd, whose operations included the supply of vegetable oils and fats to the animal feed industry, wrote to Mr Soames. He highlighted the financial incentive for slaughterhouses to flout the Regulations: they had to pay for the removal of SBO, but were still paid by renderers for non-SBO material, the difference to their income being £200 per tonne. Mr Scott stated that MBM from banned offal was still finding its way into animal feed. ⁷

4.282 On 22 March 1994 Mr Soames replied to Mr Scott explaining the Government's policies in relation to BSE. Mr Soames explained the measures put in place to deal with BSE and drew a clear distinction between measures taken to protect animal health and those to protect human health. Mr Soames stated the Ministry's 'strong commitment to the maintenance of strict measures where BSE is concerned.' He added:

I view with the utmost seriousness your allegation that some in the trade are not complying with the rules, and that material which should be going to landfill is entering the food chain. I am grateful to you for bringing these concerns to my attention, and am anxious that they should be properly investigated. ⁸

4.283 In respect of the use of tallow, Mr Soames stated:

It is true that tallow can be used for animal feed. This is because the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) took the view that the infective agent would fractionate with the protein rather than the fat fraction in the rendering process. More recently the Committee concluded that it would make sense to align the rules about the use of SBOs for animal feed with those relating to human consumption, and ban the feeding of all material derived from them to any species. However, this would primarily be as a precautionary measure and not because of any major and significant disease risk. ⁹

4.284 On 28 March 1994 Mr Scott wrote again to Mr Soames enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr David Howells of FF-Man Feed Products (a subsidiary of E D & F Man Ltd). ¹⁰ With regard to the abuse of SBO regulations, Mr Howells's letter said:

The evidence for the abuse is by implication only in that the tonnages of SBO by-products do not reconcile with theoretical prediction. That there is scope for abuse was self-evident in that:

a. The infected offals are not being permanently stained under Ministry supervision.

b. SBO and non-SBO materials are transported on the same vehicles.

c. SBO and non-SBO materials are processed through the same plant.

d. SBO tallows are currently not governed by movement order legislation.

e. SBO tallows and non-SBO tallows are processed on the same oleochemical plant.

f. Tank bottoms from the oleochemical industry contained significant percentages of SBO protein and are disposed of without a licence.

In many of the above operations there is a substantial difference in price between the SBO product and non-SBO product. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that there is an apparent discrepancy between theoretical and actual tonnages of SBO products. It would seem more appropriate to query whether there is evidence that the tonnages of SBO derived meat and bone meal, and tallow, match the theoretical predictions. ¹¹

4.285 Mr Soames replied on 21 April 1994. He emphasised that MAFF was not 'deliberately ignoring problems about the disposal of SBO material' and invited Mr Scott or Mr Howells to discuss any detailed information they might have with MAFF officials. ¹² The exchange ended with a further letter from Mr Scott saying that he had asked Mr Howells to make contact with MAFF officials and pass on any 'positive evidence' he came across. ¹³ We have not been able to find any record of further contact between Mr Howells and MAFF officials.

Mr Simmons's summary of the 'February visits'

4.286 Meanwhile, on 23 February 1994, Mr Meldrum wrote to Mr K Taylor:

I would be grateful if you could let me know, as a matter of some urgency, as to what progress has been made in recent weeks by DVOs who have been asked to pay particular attention to the disposal of SBOs. I am becoming increasingly concerned that some of the provisions of our legislation are being circumvented. ¹⁴

4.287 At that time, SVS staff were undertaking unannounced visits to all plants processing SBO and to slaughterhouses in accordance with Mr Crawford's directions of 1 February 1994. The 'full and detailed' reports of these visits were to be submitted to Mr Simmons by 11 March 1994. On 25 March 1994 Mr Simmons delivered a summary of what had been found:

[Past] reports have indicated that, in general, compliance is satisfactory. However, visits to slaughterhouses and rendering plants are made by appointment. Recent anecdotal reports and an increasing number of allegations suggest, that at various points in the disposal process, SBO is diverted and may find its way into animal feedstuffs

Reports from Divisions: summary of findings

1. In general, SBO is removed from carcasses correctly.

2. Compliance with staining requirements is patchy. In particular, intestines are frequently not stained.

3. Separation of SBO from 'other waste' in the slaughterhouse is generally adequate. This is generally achieved by the use of marked or colour-coded bins.

4. There is evidence that separation of SBO from 'other waste' is not always maintained after leaving the slaughterhouse. For example, despite apparent arrangements to preclude mixing, 'other waste' is, on occasion, transported to the rendering plant in the same container as SBO. On occasion, SBO and 'other waste' are mixed during collection from the slaughterhouse.

5. There is evidence that some local authorities are not sufficiently diligent in controlling movements. For example:

• Incorrect type of movement permit issued
• Movement permits are not reconciled with originals after completion of movement
• Incorrect destination on permit
• Poor control over movements of SBO/heads from head boning plants

6. In some cases, all four copies of the movement permit were transferred together thereby preventing reconciliation

7. At collection centres, separation is generally adequate but it is accepted that determining the constituents of the stored material is almost impossible and has to be based on trust.

8. At rendering plants, compliance with the Code of Practice was considered to be generally satisfactory. Again the operators must take the stated constituents largely on trust. There were a few reports of poor separation and inadequate identification of stored material awaiting processing. ¹⁵

4.288 Mr Simmons's conclusions were in contrast to his generally positive summaries of previous SVS returns:

It is likely that a small but significant proportion of the total amount of SBO processed, as a result of being inadequately separated and/or identified (from other waste destined for rendering) at either the slaughterhouse, in transit or at the rendering plant, finds its way into supplies of processed protein and is incorporated into animal feedstuffs. Inadequate separation from 'other waste' during storage, transportation and processing represents perhaps the greatest hazard. However, the current monitoring by the SVS is insufficient to confirm this. More formal monitoring, such as weight checks at slaughterhouses, head boning plants and rendering plants, is recommended. However, the introduction of further monitoring needs careful handling since LAs are the enforcement body and it may be perceived as criticism of their efforts. It is concluded that to ensure separation at all stages we may have to resort to statute.

Deficiencies in local authority enforcement have been identified. A centrally produced reminder to LAs and representative bodies may serve to underline our concern. However, it is clear that some LAs see the legislation as merely an exercise in removal of SBO from carcasses and preventing its use for human foodstuffs. Involving LAs in the enforcement of separation of material from thereon should be considered.

One must question the wisdom of using rendering plants for the disposal of potentially hazardous material in the light of recent evidence on the efficiency of the rendering process in reducing infectivity . . . ¹⁶

4.289 Mr Simmons made a series of recommendations, including the immediate issue of a further AHC requiring regular and specific checks on:

the consignment of SBO from slaughterhouses;

the consignment of SBO from bovine head boning plants;

the separation of SBO in transit from slaughterhouses to rendering plants; and

at rendering plants, the yield of SBO-derived protein compared to the amounts of unprocessed material received. ¹⁷

4.290 Mr Simmons prepared a draft AHC for this purpose. He also recommended that District Councils be reminded of their enforcement role and, in particular, the need for frequent checks on the removal of SBO from the carcass, correct staining of SBO and tight controls over movements. He further recommended that the fresh meat and rendering industries be reminded of their responsibilities and obligations. ¹⁸

4.291 In a statement to the Inquiry Mr Crawford said:

Throughout the period up to April 1994, there was extensive monitoring and analysis of how the Regulations were being applied in practice. I received regular reports of the situation in the field, and where problems were identified, I was satisfied that staff dealt with them appropriately. I also regularly analysed the application of the Regulations in practice, as far as I was able. When I thought changes needed to be made, I issued the necessary instructions to the staff of the VFS, either of my own volition, or following discussion with policy-making colleagues.

The review of the Regulations was, as has been described above, a gradual process, based on the accumulation of information. Until 1994, VFS staff were not reporting any major problems with enforcement. Where improvements could be made, they were . . .

. . . it is my belief that the Regulations were analysed, monitored and reviewed by regular instructions to the VFS, and by regular visits to slaughterhouses, knacker's yards and hunt kennels by VFS staff. In order to justify legislative changes to the Regulations, real evidence was needed from the VFS visits that there were serious problems with the enforcement of the Regulations. No serious problems were being reported between 1990 and 1994. Despite this, we were not complacent about monitoring the Regulations. ¹⁹