Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Response to Mr Simmons's report
Meeting on 3 May 1994 decides on the way forward
Further concerns are raised by the industry
Implementing the recommendations
Unannounced visits to monitor SBO handling in slaughterhouses, collection centres and rendering plants every two months
Mr Fleetwood's informal telephone survey
Development of a new SBO stain
Submission to the Minister

4.306 Mr Simmons's report of 25 March prompted Mr Meldrum to call a meeting of MAFF officials on 8 April 1994, to review arrangements for the disposal of SBO. The meeting was attended by Mr Crawford, Mr K Taylor, Mr Baker, Mr D Taylor, Mr Simmons, Mr Howard and Mrs Sadowski. Mr Meldrum explained that UKRA and sections of the animal feed industry were 'calling for new arrangements for the disposal of SBO'. Mr Meldrum said that 'the key was to ensure the proper enforcement of the requirement for separation of SBO from other offal at all stages'. A number of measures were proposed for tightening up the existing regime, including:

1. discussing enforcement at slaughterhouses with local authorities and publicising the rules in the slaughterhouse;
2. reviewing the SBO movement permits system to allow cross-checks between the weight of SBO leaving slaughterhouses and arriving at rendering plants;
3. requiring that SBO be stained with a different coloured dye (if possible, one which was heat detectable), 'so that any SBO material mixed with other material would be evident';
4. requiring dedicated plants for rendering of SBO;
5. restricting movement of SBO to plants 'specifically licensed to process SBO';
6. making the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) responsible, when it was launched, for enforcement of the SBO regulations at the slaughterhouse; and
7. increasing the surveillance of knackeries and hunt kennels. ¹

4.307 It was agreed that Mr Simmons would draft instructions to require the SVS to monitor SBO disposal at head-boning plants and that a submission would be put to the Parliamentary Secretary:

1. outlining why the controls on SBO disposal were being reviewed; and
2. seeking a meeting with him to discuss possible measures that could be taken.

4.308 Mr Meldrum said in a statement to the Inquiry that:

. . . throughout the period up to April 1994 there was extensive analysis of how the SBO regulations were being applied in practice. I received regular updates on the situation in the field as reported by SVS staff and was very far from being complacent about compliance with the SBO regulations. Where problems were being identified through the SVS visits, deficiencies were followed up with advice to plant operators and notification to relevant Local Authorities. The difficulty for SVS staff was finding real evidence of problems and deficiencies. What has not been found is difficult to act on. ²

4.309 In a statement to the Inquiry Mrs Brown recalled that:

SVS surveillance visits to slaughterhouses during this period revealed considerable variation in operational standards of hygiene and in standards of local authority enforcement of hygiene and structural requirements. I therefore found it reassuring that these visits did not reveal similar variation in standards of compliance with the SBO Regulations. It seemed to me reasonable to assume that if there were widespread failures of compliance, similar to the problems which existed in relation to hygiene and structural standards, this would have been evident from the reports of the SVS surveillance visits. ³

4.310 On 11 April Mr Woodgate of Prosper De Mulder wrote to Mr Meldrum, offering to dedicate one of its plants in the Midlands to the rendering of SBO, should it be required. ⁴

4.311 On 13 April 1994 Mr Simmons produced a plan for implementation over the following weeks, the various points of which had been discussed at the meeting on 8 April. His plan included:

1. obtaining details of all premises rendering SBO, a description of their method of separating it from other material, and an indication of whether they could dedicate one processing line or batch cooker to SBO;
2. increasing the frequency of visits to knacker's yards and hunt kennels to once a month, and requiring specific checks on the separation and disposal of SBO, including weight checks; and
3. requiring further checks at rendering plants and collection centres. ⁵

4.312 In relation to the last measure, the contemplated AHC would 'introduce, for the first time, weight checks (where practicable) on the material consigned from slaughterhouses and head boning plants'. A draft prepared by Mr Simmons included guidance on the expected weight of SBO and how this could be used for checking consignments of SBO from slaughterhouses. He noted that whilst 'not all slaughterhouses are capable of weighing consignments of SBO', as there was already a charge for its collection 'most premises will have some idea of the amount or weight consigned'. ⁶ He noted that he remained 'somewhat uneasy about the reaction of LAs to the introduction of these checks', since they amounted, 'at slaughterhouses and head boning plants, to scrutiny of their enforcement effort'. ⁷ Mr Simmons said that enquiries on an alternative stain for SBO were continuing.

4.313 Following consideration of Mr Simmons's plan, Mr Crawford wrote to him on 25 April 1994 suggesting:

If we are concerned to ensure the safe handling of SBOs (and to correct what is perceived to be a particular problem), two unannounced visits per year would seem to be rather infrequent. I would support more frequent visiting - say, quarterly. These could later be reduced in the light of experience. ⁸

4.314 On 28 April 1994 a further meeting was held at MAFF chaired by Mr Meldrum. It was attended by Mr Haddon, Mr Baker, Mrs Brown, Mr D Taylor, Mr Lawrence, Mr Simmons, Mr McIntosh and Miss Lowe. In relation to SBO, it was recognised that the 'current legislation does not require the separation of SBO from other by-products at all stages', and that the 1989 SBO Regulations did not apply to knacker's yards. Specific points of action were proposed:

1. Mr Simmons was asked to consider urgently the possibility of using a different coloured heat resistant dye which would identify SBO, even after rendering.

ACTION: Mr Simmons

2. The possibility of requiring the use of such a dye through the Identification and Movement Control Regulations would be considered.

ACTION: Mr McIntosh

3. RMHAs would be asked to remind OVSs and AMIs of the need to keep SBOs separate from other material in the slaughterhouse and the need for tight control over movements.

ACTION: Mr Baker

4. There needs to be further consideration of the legislative loophole which allows SBO to come into contact with other by-products during transportation.

ACTION: Mrs Brown

5. Mrs Brown was asked to speak urgently to Dr Cawthorne and Mr Eddy about knacker's yards[,] which are not currently covered by the 1989 regulations. It is likely that an Animal Health Order will be necessary to introduce the necessary controls as the 1989 regulations are made under the Food Safety Act and therefore relate to public health.

ACTION: Mrs Brown

6. The CVO said that a reason for introducing an Animal Health Order would be on the basis of the inactivation studies, and to complement the provisions of the new Identification and Movement Control regulations. He also wanted SBO to be directed by LAs to plants authorised by MAFF with a dedicated line for processing SBO. Mrs Brown was asked to liaise with Dr Cawthorne and Mr Eddy about introducing regulations under the relevant parent Act.

ACTION: Mrs Brown ⁹

4.315 Although they were not present at the meeting, Mrs Brown was asked to speak to Dr Cawthorne and Mr Eddy as a matter of urgency. At the time, Dr Cawthorne was Head of Animal Health (Zoonoses) Division (AH(Z)D), with policy and operational responsibility for statutory controls under the Disease of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973, the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989 and the Animal By-Products Order 1992. This responsibility did not extend to controls on the removal, collection, processing and disposal of SBO, but did extend to the control of by-products originating in knacker's yards. Mr Eddy had taken over as Head of the Animal Health (Disease Control) Division in June 1993.

Meeting on 3 May 1994 decides on the way forward

4.316 On 3 May 1994 Mr Eddy chaired a meeting to:

1. discuss in detail the problems that had been identified with the separation, handling and disposal of SBO material;
2. try to provide proposals to overcome those difficulties, including changes to secondary legislation necessary to tighten controls. ¹⁰

4.317 Present at the meeting were Mr Fleetwood, Mr Peter Lackenby, ¹¹ Mr Howard, Mr Matthews, Mr Simmons, Mr McIntosh and Mrs Sadowski. Mr Eddy later wrote that at this meeting they 'spent a great deal of time clarifying in our own minds how the current arrangements work'. ¹² The following legislative changes for slaughterhouses were recommended for consideration:

(a) introduce new stain (green was suggested) to mark and identify ALL SBO material. Stain to be heat stable up to at least 135ºC and probably higher, and to colour both protein and fat fractions (desirable but unlikely in view of other controls) after rendering;

(b) SBO to be kept separate from non-SBO unless all material is to be treated as SBO and stained as such (including green offal);

(c) permits for the movement of SBO to declare weights (or at least volume) and records required for quantities 'in and out' at all stages. This is likely to present problems as some premises will not have equipment for weighing or measuring volume which may necessitate declared weights/volumes from the renderers;

(d) requirement for LAs to fill in details on the permits on the movement of material out of plants and not to rely on plant operators filling them in (or verify if operator has filled in details). In 1995 the MHS will become responsible for enforcement in slaughterhouses and head boning plants and it may be more practical for this task to be devolved to them then but collection centres are likely to remain the responsibility of the 2nd tier LA;

(e) requirement to license movement of SBO only to rendering plants or incinerators specifically licensed to receive SBO (but taking account of collection centres);

(f) records to be kept by recipients to reconcile permits to a centre with actual deliveries and movements out for processing/disposal. ¹³

4.318 By way of immediate action, it was also recommended that local authorities should be reminded of the need for proper separation and staining of SBO and that:

LAs to reconcile information from permits on quantities of SBO being moved particularly the regular checking that the completed SBO movement permit has been returned to them within a given period, following-up non returned permits. ¹⁴

4.319 Knacker's yards and hunt kennels were recognised as 'the vulnerable point in the system of controls'. The note of the meeting set out the legislative background before concluding:

Against this background it is clear that the present and proposed new measures provide insufficient control of SBO through knacker's yards and similar premises. It was agreed that some additional form of control is necessary and that secondary legislation is the most appropriate vehicle for this. ¹⁵

4.320 In respect of the handling of SBO at knacker's yards and hunt kennels, the legislative changes recommended for consideration were:

(a) requirement for the separate handling of SBO or if inadequate separation to treat all material as SBO;

(b) SBO to be stained using the new stain;

(c) permits required for all movements of both raw and sterilised SBO. Permits to specify weights etc as for changes to slaughterhouse permits . . .;

(d) SBO in green offal to be covered by the same rules as other SBO and to be sterilised or stained using 'new stain' for SBO, and covered by movement permits. ¹⁶

4.321 It was also recommended that SVS visits to knackers (some unannounced) should be increased from one every two months to one per month. A draft AHC had been prepared for this purpose.

4.322 For handling of SBO at rendering plants, it was recommended that the following legislative changes be considered:

(a) require rendering plants to be licensed (or approved) to handle SBO with dedicated plants or lines within plants. All SBO treatment to be a standard which inactivates the BSE agent (or at least reduces infectivity to undetectable levels under the recent trial protocol);

(b) although there is a requirement in the licence issued under article 9 of the [Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991] to keep records (for 2 years) of the weight of SBO before rendering and the quantity of material derived after rendering, a separate legislative requirement for the keeping of records is necessary so that reconciliation can be carried out;

(c) we already have in train proposals to extend to tallow from SBO the ban on the use in animal feed already in force for protein meal derived from SBO. This will require an extension of the meal licensing rules to tallow. It may be simpler to introduce these changes at the same time. ¹⁷

4.323 It was also proposed to consider the effectiveness of the rendering industry Code of Practice and whether it should remain voluntary. Local authorities were to be encouraged to reconcile movement permits in order to avoid alleged problems where movement permits showed SBO movement to a plant which had never received it.

4.324 Finally, it was proposed that provision should be made for the separation of SBO from non-SBO material during transportation and for the reconciliation of specified weights of SBO moved to and from the various recognised destinations.

4.325 On 5 May 1994, two days after the meeting, Mr Simmons circulated a minute to those who attended regarding proposed changes to the controls on SBO disposal. ¹⁸ Mr Simmons said it was his belief that requiring the consignee to declare the weight or volume of SBO would be a useful start to an effective audit trail. However, he remained concerned about the practicalities of such a system, since not all premises would have equipment for weighing or measuring volumes. He suggested that it might pay to have discussions with the renderers to determine whether the system they used for charging for collection relied on weight or on volume.

4.326 Mr Simmons also explained that before a movement permit could be issued under the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989, the local authority had to ensure that the proposed destination would be suitable. This applied as much to collection centres as it did to rendering plants.

4.327 On 6 May 1994 Mr Simmons sent a short note to Mr Crawford to let him know that his comments on Mr Simmons's draft AHC had been incorporated into the revised draft. Changes included an increase in the number of unannounced visits to slaughterhouses and head-boning plants from two each year to four. ¹⁹ This AHC was issued on 29 June 1994 and is described below at paragraph 4.340.

4.328 Mr Crawford replied to Mr Simmons three days later. On the need for weight checks, Mr Crawford said:

Whilst acknowledging that comparisons between the consigned SBOs and recorded bovine kill can only be a rough guide, it would be useful to monitor this for a few months to establish whether it does provide useful information. ²⁰

4.329 On 17 May 1994 Mr Eddy minuted Mrs Davis and Mr Gunatilleke of MAFF's Legal Department asking them to consider the legal problems involved in implementing the proposed legislative changes relating to the handling of SBO. ²¹ Mr Eddy remarked that:

The current arrangements are complex because they involve three policy Divisions at Tolworth and operate under the Food Safety and Animal Health Acts and therefore fall to two Divisions in Legal Department. To make matters worse the animal health aspects are implemented by County Council level local authorities and the Food Safety Act aspects by the District Council tier. ²²

4.330 Mr K Taylor commented in a statement to the Inquiry in regard to this minute:

I had long held the view . . . that the division of responsibility for SBO controls between different Divisions and Sections was a potential weakness. Despite this, I am not convinced that the issue is of much practical significance, because of the willingness of all at Tolworth to co-operate with others to ensure that the job was done, whether the legislation had been made under the Food Act or the Animal Health Act. ²³

4.331 Mr Lowson said in a statement to the Inquiry:

I am not aware of any evidence that the way in which work was divided up between the divisions limited the effectiveness of control measures . . . ²⁴

4.332 Mr Capstick added:

. . . the divisional organisation at Tolworth and at HQ did not in my mind present a major problem in the context of BSE. The arrangements in fact worked because of the industry and dedication of the staff involved. ²⁵

Further concerns are raised by the industry

4.333 On 20 May 1994 Mr Woodgate of PDM wrote to Mr Meldrum reiterating his concerns about various aspects of the SBO regulations, which he felt were 'not working as well as they should'. Mr Woodgate cited some general examples of breaches of the rules for disposal of SBO and commented that 'overall tightening up of all aspects of the SBO regulations' was long overdue. He wrote:

In particular, I have personally seen bovine skulls, including brain, delivered at a rendering site for use as low risk raw material. These skulls were not stained or accompanied by a movement permit.

I have also seen a wide range of information recorded on movement permits including such descriptions as 'BSE offals'. The movement permit also normally lacks information on weight of the (SBO) material, but may describe quantities such as '2 barrels' or '3 skips'. ²⁶

4.334 Mr Meldrum replied on 3 June 1994. He told Mr Woodgate that he was not alone in voicing concern about the disposal of SBO and that MAFF's own investigations had revealed a small number of cases where the system was not working as well as it should. He added that this was 'being addressed urgently' and that all staff had been 'instructed to increase their vigilance and to target any perceived weaknesses in the system'. ²⁷

4.335 The fourth European Commission animal health mission took place from 24 to 27 May 1994, and examined the implementation in the UK of EC legislation regarding BSE. The subsequent report noted that, in the slaughterhouses visited by the mission, 'the removal, disposal, transport and treatment of specified bovine offal was performed in a proper way'. ²⁸

Implementing the recommendations

4.336 In the meantime, MAFF's Legal Department considered the legal difficulties MAFF faced if it introduced the changes proposed at the meeting on 3 May 1994. On 6 June Mr Howard had met with Mr Durkin of the Legal Department to discuss the proposals and on 15 June he sent a minute to several officials in MAFF and the Territorial Departments, outlining the outcome of this discussion. The minute explained in detail the proposed human health and animal health measures to be introduced by statutory instruments under the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Animal Health Act 1981. Mr Howard pointed out that:

At present enforcement of the SBO/BSE controls rests with local authorities at 2nd tier (District Councils) for provisions made under the Food Safety Act (slaughterhouses, head boning plants, collection centres, knacker's yards etc), and at 1st tier (County Councils) for provisions made under the Animal Health Act 1981 (rendering plants and disposal of waste after rendering). ²⁹

4.337 He noted that under new proposals, following the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) in April 1995, enforcement of controls at slaughterhouses and boning plants would be transferred from local authorities to the MHS. This meant that SBO controls would be enforced by three separate authorities. Mr Howard noted that, given the importance of the controls, this was an aspect that needed further consideration. ³⁰

Unannounced visits to monitor SBO handling in slaughterhouses, collection centres and rendering plants every two months

4.338 Whilst the proposed legislative changes required additional consideration and consultation, the draft AHC requiring more frequent presence of SVS staff at slaughterhouses, head-boning plants and rendering plants could be progressed quickly. Mr Simmons minuted Mr Baker on 23 May 1994 stating:

As discussed, I attach revised copies of the two draft AHCs on the disposal of SBO. These incorporate the amendments suggested by the CVO and Mr. Crawford. Significant changes are sidelined. As discussed, since we have agreed to introduce these instructions discreetly, references to letters reminding LAs and the industry have been deleted. ³¹

4.339 Mr Meldrum had previously asked for amendments to the circular 'since we do not need to publicise our concerns'. ³²

4.340 On 29 June 1994, AHC 94/106 was issued to all DVOs, replacing AHC 92/94 and AHC 93/32. On the practicalities of the animal SBO ban, the circular explained that whilst:

. . . direct responsibility rests with persons supplying feedstuffs and persons feeding animals, it is clear that persons handling, transporting and processing SBO have an indirect responsibility for ensuring that SBO is not mixed with other material directly or indirectly intended for animal feedstuffs. In respect of the operators of rendering plants this has been reinforced by a voluntary Code of Practice (Annex D). The objective of the Code is to ensure separation of SBO from other material throughout the rendering operation. ³³

4.341 In respect of slaughterhouses, the AHC required that each cattle slaughterhouse receive an unannounced visit every two months. Two separate weeks' kill in the preceding period were to be selected and the movement permits for SBO compared with the kill for the period in question. The amount of SBO consigned would be compared with the number of cattle killed. Estimates of the expected yield of SBO were to be checked against the records of cattle slaughtered. At each of the visits, checks were also to be made to establish that SBO remained separate from 'other waste'. The circular noted that this was particularly important where both classes of material were being consigned to the one compartmentalised vehicle.

4.342 Head-boning plants were to be visited 'at least four times per year' to establish the manner of SBO disposal. The number of heads received by the plant was to be compared with the number of heads (or the weight of brains) consigned to approved destinations.

4.343 Collection centres and rendering plants known to handle SBO were also to receive visits every two months. Checks at the collection centre should ensure that SBO was separated from other material in storage and whilst in transit. Records of the amount of SBO consigned to the rendering plants were to be compared with the total yield of protein, which should have been around 25 per cent of the original weight. Conditions of licence of those rendering plants disposing of protein derived from SBO should also be checked, as well as their compliance with the Code of Practice.

4.344 The AHC provided that any problems with the separation of SBO at any premises should be taken up with the operator or haulier as appropriate. Returns for all premises on revised MH6 forms were to be submitted via RVO to SVO (Red Meat) at Tolworth every two months.

4.345 Meanwhile, on 25 June 1994, AHC 94/100 was issued to all DVOs on the handling of animal waste at knacker's yards and hunt kennels. It increased the requirements for frequency of visits to monthly and required that at least 50 per cent of the visits were to be unannounced. The circular noted that deficiencies should be brought to the attention of the relevant local authority. Three examples of deficiencies that would warrant action included:

Failure to separate specified bovine offal from other knackery waste material (where the waste material is intended to be consigned to a rendering plant for processing into meat and bone meal and is destined for incorporation into animal feed). Article 12 of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991 prohibits the use of SBO or SBO-derived protein for use in animal feed. To meet this obligation SBO should be kept separate from other waste intended to be rendered to produce animal feed at all stages of transport and storage (unless all the knackery waste material is intended to be handled and treated as SBO). ³⁴

Mr Fleetwood's informal telephone survey

4.346 In July 1994, because of pressure of work in Mr Eddy's Division, ³⁵ Mr Haddon asked Dr Cawthorne to 'assume overall responsibility for progressing changes to the SBO controls and to prepare an action plan'. ³⁶

4.347 One of the changes proposed at the meeting on 3 May 1994 was to limit the rendering plants allowed to handle SBO to those which had a processing line dedicated solely to SBO and the separate collection of protein and tallow derived from them. Dr Cawthorne gave Mr Fleetwood the task of taking this initiative forward. Mr Fleetwood was an SVO who reported to Dr Cawthorne within the AH(Z)D. Having processing lines dedicated to SBO would go further than the existing Code of Practice designed to prevent contamination of non-SBO material at rendering plants. ³⁷ In his statement to the Inquiry, Mr Fleetwood commented:

However, I knew from my experience with cross contamination in feedmills and rendering processes in relation to salmonella that, without dedicated plants, it was almost impossible to eliminate cross contamination risk.

feedmills and rendering plants are complex plants handling material in multiple tonne quantities. They use automated equipment (such as screw conveyors and blow lines). It is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove all traces of previous material conveyed through the plant. ³⁸

4.348 When asked during oral evidence whether the 'purging system' under the Code of Practice was sufficient once studies emerged that 1 gram, or possibly less, of material was sufficient to transmit infection, Mr Fleetwood replied:

No. That is one of the bases, or one of the reasons for the decision being taken to require dedicated lines. ³⁹

4.349 At Dr Cawthorne's request, Mr Fleetwood telephoned the major UK rendering plants in order to check their capacity. In the course of his telephone calls, he took the opportunity to obtain information about the quantities of SBO that they received in order to compare this with the theoretical tonnage that ought to have been produced, based on slaughterhouse throughput. ⁴⁰ Mr Fleetwood's inquiries showed 'a substantial shortfall in the estimated SBO which renderers were receiving compared with estimated SBO which ought to have been received by them', suggesting that 'SBO controls were not working'. ⁴¹

4.350 On 15 July 1994 a report prepared by Dr Cawthorne was sent to Mr Haddon and copied to other MAFF officials. It highlighted the results of Mr Fleetwood's telephone survey of renderers. Approximately 800 tonnes of SBO were being processed weekly in Great Britain. Dr Cawthorne noted that this was over 400 tonnes short of his 'average estimate for this time of year'. Dr Cawthorne tried to explain the estimated shortfall in SBO collection. He noted that Prosper De Mulder's opinion was that the 'biggest loss' of SBO was occurring at slaughterhouses, where SBO was not being separated, stained and stored apart from non-SBO material. They believed that since SBO was not being stained 'some renderers may be diverting SBO for normal processing'. ⁴²

4.351 Dr Cawthorne concluded that whilst staining might improve the situation by restricting opportunities for siphoning off at rendering plants, the long-term solution demanded 'effective policing of SBO separation, staining and storage at slaughterhouses'. Dr Cawthorne proposed changes to controls on SBO:

We wish to monitor and control the collection and movement of all SBOs (including that from calves less than 6 months of age) from their premises of origin (slaughterhouses, knacker's yards, boning and cutting plants, hunt kennels, fur farms, zoos, etc) to Agriculture Department approved rendering/incineration plants via approved collection centres, and to ensure that SBO material remains identifiable and separate from other material at all times. We also [want] to ensure any protein or tallow derived from SBO does not enter the animal [or] human food chains by requiring its burial or incineration in the case of meat and bone meal or chemical fractionation in the case of tallow. To this end, the following legal requirements are considered necessary:

(a) all SBO to be stained at the premises of origin with a water soluble, non-toxic dye capable of withstanding the temperatures reached in rendering (130°C). Ideally such a dye will be carried through to any meat and bone meal derived from processed SBO making it easily distinguishable from non-SBO derived material;

(b) separate handling, storage and transport of SBOs from non-SBOs at premises of origin, intermediate collection points and premises of final destination (rendering plants, incinerators); if this cannot be achieved, all non-SBO to be treated as SBO;

(c) all movements of SBOs between premises of origin, intermediate collection points and premises of final destination to be subject to movement permits issued by the local authority or the Meat Hygiene Service, when in place and where appropriate;

(d) all intermediate collection points to be approved by Agriculture Ministers, approval requiring they have the necessary facilities to store and handle SBOs separately from other animal waste and that they keep records on SBO movements onto and off the premises as required;

(e) all SBOs to go to rendering plants/incineration plants approved/designated by Agriculture Ministers: approval would only be given if they have (a) the necessary facilities for the separate storage and handling of SBOs (b) a line dedicated solely to the processing of SBOs and the separate collection of protein and tallow derived from it (ideally we would prefer a plant solely dedicated to SBO processing but . . . this is unlikely), and (c) can meet the new EC standards for the processing of ruminant material;

(f) all greaves, meat and bone meal and tallow derived from SBO to be moved under Agriculture Minister licence to approved incinerators or burial sites, subject to a final decision being reached on SBO derived tallow;

(g) the owner or person in charge [of the] slaughterhouse, knacker's yard etc, intermediate collection point or rendering/incineration plant to (a) record the weight of all SBO material originating from, leaving or arriving at his premises (b) keep such records for a minimum of two years and (c) make the records available to Agriculture Ministers or local authority on request. Ideally access to inspect records also required. ⁴³

Development of a new SBO stain

4.352 As noted above, Mr Simmons was asked by Mr Meldrum in April 1994 to research an alternative stain for SBO. In a statement to the Inquiry Mr Simmons said:

Until 1st April, 1995, SBO was stained with Black PN before disposal. SBO was stained to enable it to be identified, at a glance, as not suitable for human consumption. However, the stain was easily broken down by microbial activity and was also confusing for the operators of premises since the stain was also used for other unfit carcass meat and offal. In April 1994, I was instructed by Mr Meldrum to research an alternative stain: one that was distinctive, not destroyed by the heat of rendering and one that could be readily detected in the protein and fat fractions of the rendered material. It was important that an approved colorant (ie with an 'E' number) was selected since this was to be used in food premises such as slaughterhouses. ⁴⁴

4.353 In his 'action plan', Dr Cawthorne emphasised that a suitable dye needed to be identified and tested 'in a real life situation using SBO stained at premises of origin and rendered in an operational processing plant'. A commercial scale trial of a candidate dye in a batch rendering operation was to take place on 25 July 1994. ⁴⁵

4.354 In his statement to the Inquiry, Mr Fleetwood explained that responsibility for development of a suitable stain was transferred to the Zoonoses Division in accordance with Dr Cawthorne's recommendations. ⁴⁶ He also confirmed the practical problems which arose from staining SBO with Black PN:

First, it made it difficult to distinguish SBOs stained according to the 1989 SBO regulations from offal stained according to the Meat and Sterilisation Regulations 1982 . . . Secondly, Black PN was not bio-stable. It tended to disappear as an identifiable stain after approximately 48 hours on offals. ⁴⁷

4.355 On 24 August 1994 Mr Meldrum minuted Mr Fleetwood stating that he felt it was essential that a suitable colorant be found before the Regulations requiring its use were made, as introducing the colorant later would be 'extremely inconvenient'. He requested a progress report on any new dye that had been suggested. ⁴⁸ Mr Fleetwood's response confirmed that new stains were being assessed. He noted that the process was 'taking longer than we would have liked, but the technical difficulties are considerable'. ⁴⁹

4.356 On 13 September 1994 Mr Fleetwood informed Mr Meldrum, among others, that Patent Blue had been identified as the most suitable new stain and recommended that field trials be commenced. Mr Meldrum immediately agreed. ⁵⁰

Submission to the Minister

4.357 Meanwhile, on 23 July 1994, Dr Cawthorne provided Mr Meldrum with a draft submission to the new Minister of Agriculture, Mr William Waldegrave, on the proposals to improve the controls on the collection, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of SBO. ⁵¹

4.358 The draft submission explained that evidence obtained from reports by SVS field staff indicated that there was some non-compliance with staining requirements and that separation of SBO and non-SBO material was not always maintained during transport to rendering plants or collection centres. It also noted that:

some local authorities are less diligent than others in controlling and reconciling the movement of SBO from slaughterhouses to renderers, possibly through a mistaken belief that the controls are aimed solely at protecting public health, overlooking the animal health implications should they find their way into animal feedstuffs. ⁵²

4.359 It was pointed out that, as a result of these findings, enforcement had been 'stepped up'. SVS staff had been instructed to make unannounced visits every two months to all cattle slaughterhouses to check on the collection and separation of SBO and the adequacy of movement permits issued. All shortcomings identified were to be pursued.

4.360 The draft submission set out each of the proposed changes designed to make the identification of SBO easier and the diversion of SBO into MBM and animal feed more difficult. In summary, the proposed changes were:

1. introducing a legal requirement for all SBO to be stained with a distinctive, non-toxic dye;
2. introducing a legal requirement for SBO to be handled, stored, transported and processed separately from non-SBO material;
3. extending the requirement for SBO movement permits to knacker's yards;
4. requiring movement permits to contain additional information on the weight of SBO moved;
5. requiring collection centres and rendering plants to be officially approved for dealing with SBO; and
6. requiring slaughterhouses, knacker's yards, collection centres and rendering plants to keep records of all SBO material with which they dealt.

4.361 It was also proposed that rendering plants should be required to process SBO in a dedicated cooker or plant. The feasibility and implications of this proposal would be clarified once the industry had been consulted.

4.362 A revised draft of the submission was circulated for comment within MAFF, SOAEFD, WOAD, DANI and DH on 2 August 1994. On 10 August 1994 Dr Cawthorne sent the finalised submission to Mr Waldegrave. It read, in part:

Recently, there have been allegations that the SBO controls are not always adhered to and that some SBO may be finding its way into animal feedstuffs. Evidence to substantiate such claims is difficult to obtain but analysis of available data suggests that a sizeable proportion is not being destroyed. Reports from our veterinary field staff indicate that while SBO is in general correctly removed from carcasses and compliance with staining requirements is, on the whole, fairly well observed, intestines are frequently not stained. Separation of SBO from non-SBO material in slaughterhouses is generally adequate but this separation is not always maintained during transportation to rendering plants or collection centres. Inadequate staining makes it more difficult to distinguish SBO from non-SBO material and provides opportunities for SBO to find its way into animal feedstuffs if mixed with non-SBO material. There is also evidence that some local authorities are less diligent or less effective than others in controlling and reconciling the movement of SBO from slaughterhouses to renderers. ⁵³

4.363 In its closing paragraph, the submission read:

The changes require careful presentation to avoid giving any impression that existing controls are not working and human health is being put at risk: our primary concern is to minimise the possibility of material derived from SBO getting into animal feed. ⁵⁴

4.364 In a manuscript note dated 16 August it was noted:

The Minister is concerned that it is made clear to the Industry why this is so important and also that the controls should be made as simple as possible. ⁵⁵