Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Response to Mr Simmons's report
Consultation on proposed changes to the SBO controls
Confirmation that only a 'very low dose' is required to transmit BSE
New processing standards at renderers
Returns on visits pursuant to AHC 94/106
Further consideration of the use of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed
The infectivity in distal ileum of calves under the age of 6 months
The Spongiform Encephalopathy (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 1994
Results of consultation on proposed changes to the SBO controls
Dr Cawthorne's submission to the Parliamentary Secretary
Consideration of Dr Cawthorne's submission
Returns on the next round of two-monthly visits pursuant to AHC 94/106

Consultation on proposed changes to the SBO controls

4.365 On 22 August 1994, MAFF issued a consultation letter to relevant organisations outlining the proposed changes to the controls for the collection and disposal of SBO. It stated that whilst the Government was 'generally satisfied with the existing provisions,' it had identified areas where improvements could be made. It was noted that the adoption of Commission Decision 94/382/EEC on 27 June 1994, which set new standards for the processing of ruminant-derived material, provided an opportunity to review the existing legislation. The recipients' views on the proposed changes were welcomed. ¹

4.366 The proposed changes were:

1. The option of sterilising SBO instead of staining it would be withdrawn, and a distinctive non-toxic dye would be introduced for staining SBO to distinguish it from other unfit material.
2. The handling, storage, transportation and processing of SBO separately from non-SBO material would be an express legal requirement. Where this could not be achieved, all non-SBO material would be treated in the same manner as SBO.
3. All movements of SBO, regardless of their place of removal, would be subject to permits issued by local authorities (for the first time including movement from knacker's yards to renderers). The movement permits would contain information on the quantity of SBO moved 'to enable better reconciliation between the amounts despatched and those arriving at rendering plants for final disposal'.
4. Collection centres would be subject to approval by MAFF on the basis of 'their ability to handle and store SBO separately from all other animal waste and to keep detailed records of the SBO movements onto and off the premises'.
5. Slaughterhouses, knacker's yards, collection centres and rendering plants would be required to keep records of the weight of all SBO material originating from, leaving or arriving at the premises for two years, and make them available to the Government or local authorities on request.
6. All renderers wanting to process SBO would require Government approval on the basis of their ability to:
7. operate to the standards laid down in Commission Decision 94/382/EEC for processing waste of ruminant origin;
8. have the necessary facilities to handle and store SBO separately from non-SBO material.

4.367 The letter also noted that the Government wished to 'explore with industry' the possibility of requiring that all SBO be rendered in either dedicated lines or in dedicated rendering plants. It was acknowledged that this 'could have significant resource implications for the rendering industry'. ² The results of this consultation process are discussed below at paragraphs 4.395-4.401.

Confirmation that only a 'very low dose' is required to transmit BSE

4.368 About two weeks later, on 17 August 1994, Dr Cawthorne, Mr Howard and Dr Matthews met with representatives of UKASTA and CVL to discuss, amongst other things, the current and future controls on SBO. The note of the meeting recorded that:

UKASTA outlined its concern that some SBOs might inadvertently be getting through into the meat and bone meal purchased by feed manufacturers which, in turn, might contain the BSE agent. Thus, the question was raised as to whether MAFF checked the quantity of SBO's removed by abattoirs against the number of bovine animals slaughtered over a period of time in order to check the effectiveness of the legislation.

MAFF advised that this was difficult since, for example, the average weight of SBOs from any one animal could range from 20kg to 30kg. Furthermore although it was possible to estimate the quantity of such materials that might be removed over a period of time, factors such as seasonality, and the numbers of animals slaughtered could result in the overall estimate being imprecise. ³

4.369 MAFF outlined the controls on SBO and the discussion then turned to the infectivity of the BSE agent (see also Chapter 2).

The CVL reiterated the finding known for some time that a single exposure to the BSE agent [was] likely to cause the disease to develop. There was no evidence of the occurrence [of] BSE resulting from a cumulative exposure.

The BSE epidemic is consistent with a low dose exposure . . .

A discussion took place on the implications to the feed industry if it was subsequently shown that a dose of 1g had caused BSE. Setting aside considerations of the effectiveness of the SBO legislation and even though it was possible to try and minimise the risk of cross contamination between feeds for ruminants and those for monogastrics, the only protection for a feed manufacturer might be to stop using meat and bonemeal in any feedingstuff. ⁴

4.370 Confirmation that 'a very low dose' of infective material was sufficient for an animal to succumb to BSE was given at a second meeting between UKASTA, CVL and MAFF on 8 September 1994. The meeting was attended by Mr K Taylor, Mr Fleetwood, Mr Howard, Dr Matthews, Mr Wilesmith and UKASTA representatives. ⁵ Mr Meldrum was provided with a copy of a note of the meeting prepared by UKASTA ⁶ In discussion of the early indications from the attack rate experiment it was recorded:

1. CVL had always considered that the infective dose of BSE was relatively small. However, although not yet complete, the studies being undertaken on the oral exposure of cattle (the attack rate study) were indicating that a very low dose was sufficient to cause BSE.
2. With completion of the case control study, it was the considered opinion of MAFF researchers that the potential for cross-contamination at feedmills was a cause of some concern.
3. UKASTA advised that, under the circumstances, the only way in which individual compounders could fully protect themselves against possible claims was by stopping the use of MBM altogether in mills where ruminant feeds were being manufactured.
4. MAFF representatives reported on the recently adopted European Commission Decision 94/382/EC on heat treatment systems for processing ruminant MBM based on work undertaken on de-activation of the BSE and scrapie agents. Commission Decision 94/381/EC banning the use of mammalian MBM in ruminant feedingstuffs was also discussed. MAFF representatives advised the meeting that the UK ruminant feed ban would not be lifted when the legislation implementing the Commission Decision on rendering processes was adopted. ⁷

4.371 Dr William Watson ⁸ gave evidence to the Inquiry that both he and Mr Bradley were surprised at the small amount of central nervous system material required to transmit BSE orally to cattle. ⁹ Mr Gerald Wells, Head of the Neuropathology Section of the CVL Pathology Department, also expressed surprise that a single gram of brain homogenate proved to be an effective dose. ¹⁰ Mr Meldrum told the Inquiry that prior to receiving the early results of the attack rate study he would have said that 'a substantial dose' was required to infect. ¹¹ (See vol. 3: The Early Years 1986-88 for discussion of dose.)

4.372 Mr Richard Packer, MAFF Permanent Secretary, ¹² was officially informed of the result by a minute from Mr Meldrum on 28 February 1995 which was forwarded to the Minister on 31 March. ¹³

Mr Meldrum told Mr Packer that the findings helped to explain why the feed ban had been less effective than intended. ¹⁴ Mr Packer said in oral evidence to the Inquiry that he had been aware of the likely results in November 1994. ¹⁵

4.373 The finding of disease in animals in the 1 g group was finally confirmed by histopathological examination in February 1996, ¹⁶ and various periodic updates followed. The results of the study were never published.

New processing standards at renderers

4.374 On 21 September 1994 Mr Lackenby sent a letter to every renderer approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, attaching Commission Decision 94/382/EEC which set out new processing standards for rendering plants processing material of ruminant origin. The new standards included compulsory standards for particle size, time and temperature of rendering systems. They would apply from 1 January 1995.

4.375 Mr Lackenby noted that MAFF wished to validate plants wishing to process ruminant protein from early October. He explained the validation process which would require visual and documentary assessment of the plant. Accordingly, he attached forms to be returned to MAFF specifying whether the plant sought validation. ¹⁷

4.376 On 26 September 1994, AHC 94/146 was issued to all DVOs. It attached a copy of Commission Decision 94/382/EEC explaining the new processing standards for rendering plants processing material of ruminant origin. It noted that the Decision required Member States to check that rendering plants were meeting the new standards applying from 1 January 1995. The new processing standards would apply to all plants approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992 and processing raw material of ruminant origin. The circular noted that, accordingly, a letter on the validation of rendering plants had been sent to all renderers approved under the By-Products Order. Following the receipt of instructions from Headquarters, DVOs should contact the owner or operator of the premises in question to arrange a date and time to visit in order to undertake validation. The circular also noted that it was of vital importance that validation visits take place at a time when the rendering plant was in full operation. Temporary certificates should be issued to those plants which were satisfactory, and the certificates would be translated to a full approval to process by-products of ruminant origin later in the year. Plants which were not satisfactory should be assisted to make necessary alterations to allow for validation by 1 January 1995. ¹⁸

Returns on visits pursuant to AHC 94/106

4.377 Since the issue of AHC 94/106 on 29 June 1994, SVS visits to slaughterhouses, collection centres and rendering plants were required every two months. On 9 September 1994 Mr Simmons circulated his first report on the visits made pursuant to AHC 94/106. In the 300 slaughterhouse visits made, compliance with the SBO regulations and separation of SBO from other waste was reported as being satisfactory. A limited number of checks on SBO yield were made, generally indicating yields within the determined limits. Mr Simmons reported 'minor' deficiencies, such as incorrectly marked or unmarked SBO receptacles, but appropriate action had been taken to address these. In collection centres, the reports indicated that separation of SBO from other material was generally satisfactory, although not all consignments were accompanied by a movement permit. In one rendering plant inadequate separation of MBM derived from SBO and MBM from other sources was reported and, in another plant, inadequate separation of unprocessed SBO from other raw material was reported. All tallow, other than that recycled as part of the rendering process, was sold via brokers, and all MBM derived from SBO was either buried or incinerated at licensed premises. ¹⁹

4.378 On 2 November 1994 Mr Simmons produced a report on the second round of visits pursuant to AHC 94/106. ²⁰ Over 350 slaughterhouse visits were made during the relevant period. No significant problems were reported in separation, staining and consignment of SBO at slaughterhouses. Some slaughterhouses did not separate SBO from other waste, but despatched it as a mixed consignment with all of the material being treated as SBO. Mr Simmons said that, while this was an acceptable procedure, it precluded the use of detailed weight checks and left greater scope for such a consignment to be wrongly identified in a collection centre because it clearly contained non-SBO material. It was noted that the introduction of a 'clearly different and stable stain' should end confusion. The results of weight checks were considered to be generally satisfactory.

4.379 Mr Simmons reported that the separation of SBO from other material at collection centres was generally satisfactory, although some deficiencies with movement permits were noted. Concern was expressed about the possibility of mixed loads of SBO and non-SBO material inadvertently being reclassified as non-SBO material. Of the rendering plants, one was not complying with the Code of Practice. This had been 'the subject of considerable SVS input and there are other plans to alter the layout of the premises to improve the separation of SBO from other material'. Mr Simmons stated that it was clear from the reports and discussion with field staff that the 'increased level of checks' had focused attention on the disposal of SBO' and had provided the 'impetus to draw the attention of LAs deficient in enforcement'. ²¹

Further consideration of the use of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed

4.380 SEAC considered the uses of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed at its meetings in January, April and August of 1994 (see vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood). The Committee agreed at its meeting on 10 August 1994 that tallow derived from SBO could continue to be used in animal feed provided that the material had been fractionated by the oleochemical process. ²²

4.381 On 27 September 1994 a submission seeking the Minister's agreement and signature to the Spongiform Encephalopathy (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 1994, noted that the draft Order did not go so far as to prohibit the inclusion of SBO-derived tallow in animal feed, as this had been reconsidered by SEAC and was the subject of a separate submission to be put forward shortly (see paragraphs 4.382-4.385 below). ²³

4.382 On 12 October 1994 Mr Eddy communicated SEAC's views on SBO-derived tallow to the Parliamentary Secretary, Mrs Angela Browning, and sought her agreement to write to the industry accordingly. ²⁴ Mr Eddy wrote:

Proposals on how this ban on the use of SBO derived tallow in animal feedingstuffs will be considered as part of the wider ranging proposals for changes to the existing SBO controls . . . ²⁵

4.383 He concluded:

The Minister is asked to agree that the advice of SEAC should be implemented and appropriate organisations informed. In doing so we recommend reminding them of the existing ban on using this material for human food. ²⁶

4.384 The Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 subsequently extended the scope of the ban on inclusion of specified bovine offal to prohibit the sale or use of SBO-derived tallow in animal feedstuffs except where it had been subject to the fractionation process used in the oleochemical industry ²⁷ (see paragraph 4.526 below).

4.385 Consideration of the implications of the inclusion of both standard tallow and SBO-derived tallow in animal feed is discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume.

The infectivity in distal ileum of calves under the age of 6 months

4.386 MAFF Ministers and senior officials were informed of the results from the pathogenesis experiment involving calves by Mr Meldrum on 17 June 1994. ²⁸ The experiment had detected the BSE agent in the distal ileum (small intestine) of calves killed at 6 and 10 months, having each been fed - at the age of 4 months - with 100 g of brain homogenate from a clinical case of BSE. ²⁹ He noted that this was 'the first time [that] the BSE agent has been shown to be present in tissues outside the central nervous system'. ³⁰ Mr Meldrum advised that publication of the preliminary results was being arranged, and that the final results would be available in September 1994, February 1995 and May 1995. ³¹

4.387 Whilst the initial implications of these results caused concern about the consequences for human health (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96, Chapter 4), these results also had implications for animal health in so far as the infected tissue could continue to be incorporated in animal feed.

4.388 On 23 June 1994 Mr K Taylor put a submission to Ministers on the new pathogenesis results. While noting that the 'SBO ban is a vital control in the protection of public health: probably the most important single measure', he continued:

At worst this indicates that, contrary to what was believed until now, a potentially infected tissue is still available for use in human or animal food (although ruminants are protected by the ruminant feed ban). This is why [SEAC] is being given the information and asked for advice. ³²

4.389 Following further consideration of the pathogenesis results by MAFF, DH and SEAC (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96), Ministers decided to extend the SBO bans to include thymus and intestines of calves under 6 months of age. On 30 June, in a joint press release issued by Dr Calman and Mr Meldrum announcing the Government's intention to prohibit the use of thymus and intestines of calves under 6 months of age, it was noted:

Although no finding of infectivity has been made in the bovine thymus this is an organ which is sold for human consumption as sweetbreads, and which is a permitted ingredient of meat products. Inclusion in the definition of specified bovine offals will ensure that any risk of transmission of BSE by this route is closed off. ³³

4.390 On 21 October Mr Howard informed a number of interested organisations that both the Spongiform Encephalopathy (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 1994 and the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 would be coming into effect on 2 November. ³⁴

The Spongiform Encephalopathy (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 1994

4.391 The Spongiform Encephalopathy (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 1994 came into force on 2 November 1994. The Order amended three Orders including the 1991 BSE Order. It extended the definition of 'specified bovine offals' in the 1991 Order to:

(a) where the animal is over six months of age and has in the United Kingdom died or been slaughtered, the brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestines;

(b) where the animal is two months of age or over but not over six months of age and has in the United Kingdom died or been slaughtered, the thymus and intestines only; and

(c) where the animal is under two months of age and has been slaughtered in the United Kingdom for human consumption, the thymus and intestines only. ³⁵

4.392 It also implemented EC Decision 94/381/EC by extending the ruminant feed ban, to prohibit any mammalian protein from being fed to ruminant animals (see Chapter 2). ³⁶

4.393 The amendment to the definition of specified bovine offal was mirrored in the Bovine Offal (Prohibition)(Amendment) Regulations 1994, ³⁷ (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96) which also came into force on 2 November 1994.

Results of consultation on proposed changes to the SBO controls

4.394 On 27 October Mr N Jackson provided Mr Lackenby (copied to Dr Cawthorne, Mr Fleetwood, Mr Simmons and others) with the summary of the responses to the consultation exercise received to date. He noted that only five rendering plants had supplied comments and he annexed a precis of the more substantial comments. ³⁸

4.395 On 21 November 1994, three months after the consultation letter had been circulated, Dr Cawthorne circulated the results within MAFF and other Government Departments. He included an explanation of the various responses to each of the proposals and his view on what recommendations should be made to the Minister. Of the 70 or so organisations consulted, 30 replies were received with a wide range of responses. Dr Cawthorne set out any industry comments on each of the proposed changes. He concluded that:

1. sterilising of SBO (rather than staining) upon its removal from carcasses should no longer be an acceptable option;
2. a distinctive dye, probably Patent Blue, should be required for staining SBO;
3. it should be a legal requirement to separate SBO from non-SBO material at all points and any mixtures of SBO and non-SBO material should be treated as if they were SBO;
4. although there was widespread agreement on the need for an improved system for auditing SBO movement, consultation had identified a number of difficulties. A requirement to record weights might add to a financial burden and might not lead to an improvement if quantities could not be reconciled. Responsibilities for the issuing of movement permits would pass from District Councils to County Councils. The movement permit system needed to be 'thought through carefully' before recommendations could be made to Ministers;
5. collection centres should be subject to approval, preferably by MAFF rather than local authorities; and
6. there were no 'obvious barriers' to requiring renderers who were processing SBO to obtain approval. However, the question whether SBO should be processed in dedicated cookers or plants needed further consideration and discussion with industry. ³⁹

4.396 Dr Cawthorne also noted that views of the rendering industry and meat industry organisations remained divided on the requirement for dedicated plants for the rendering of SBO. He concluded that further consideration and discussion with the industry would be sensible.

4.397 Mrs Brown provided comments on Mr Cawthorne's proposed SBO controls on 8 December. She noted that a justification for removing the requirement of movement permits was that it was a 'costly system, which controls legitimate traders but is no safeguard against those who intend to flout the law.' She noted that removing the system would 'free local authority resources which can be used to increase direct enforcement methods, ie more frequent visits to check records'. ⁴⁰

4.398 MAFF embarked on further consultation with the industry, and on 9 December 1994 UKRA representatives met MAFF officials to discuss the proposed changes. ⁴¹ Messrs Meldrum, Crawford, Haddon, Baker and Eddy, Dr Cawthorne, Mrs Brown and Mr K Taylor represented MAFF. A minute of the meeting circulated later by Dr Cawthorne recorded that UKRA's representatives:

1. raised no objections to MAFF's proposal to require staining of SBO with Patent Blue;
2. were content with MAFF's proposal to require separation of SBO from non-SBO material at all points along the collection and disposal chain, but were concerned that separation should not extend to requiring use of dedicated vehicles as opposed to single compartmentalised vehicles, on the grounds of cost;
3. raised concerns at the possibility of requiring SBO collections to be sealed, as the same lorry would often service several slaughterhouses before having a sufficient load to take to the rendering plant. A requirement that loads be sealed on despatch would therefore be difficult to comply with;
4. did not object to MAFF's proposal at the meeting that the current system of movement permits be replaced with an obligation to keep records of SBO despatched and received. This proposal was that slaughterhouses, knacker's yards, collection centres, renderers and incineration plants should keep records of the quantity, origin and/or destination of SBO leaving or arriving at their premises and that these records should be available for inspection. Spot checks on these records were then proposed as an alternative to the existing system of movement permits;
5. were content with proposals to make rendering plants subject to approval on the basis of their ability to separate SBO from non-SBO, process SBO in accordance with EC requirements, and require the separation of not just the greaves, but all products of SBO processing, including tallow. ⁴²

4.399 There was also comment on the possibility of requiring dedicated lines or plants for the processing of SBO material. Several arguments against such an action were put forward:

We were left in no doubt that if MAFF required SBO to be processed in dedicated facilities, the industry would respond by installing separate cookers. Installation would take time and would cost money which would be passed on to abattoirs, etc in increased collection charges. We should also not lose sight of the possibility that PDM's already dominant position in the market place could be increased and that some processors could go out of business. ⁴³

4.400 Dr Cawthorne concluded that in light of the readiness with which their other proposals were accepted by UKRA, MAFF should forego requirements for dedicated processing of SBO or sealed collections for the time being. ⁴⁴

4.401 In a statement to the Inquiry, Mr Meldrum said that he responded to Dr Cawthorne three days later. He remained adamant that 'we must have a watertight system for the separation, staining and processing of SBOs that does not put the cattle industry at risk'. He recognised that some of the proposals could cause some inconvenience and additional cost to the industry, but noted that 'our objective is to reduce the exposure of cattle to the agent of BSE to negligible proportions and thereby ensure that the disease is eradicated from the UK'. He also indicated his support for the use of seals on SBO transport containers and for processing of SBO in dedicated plants. ⁴⁵

Dr Cawthorne's submission to the Parliamentary Secretary

4.402 In a submission to Mrs Browning on 9 January 1995, Dr Cawthorne referred to the results of deliberations with various Government Departments on the previous year's consultation process for changes to the collection and handling of SBO. Dr Cawthorne sought Mrs Browning's agreement to 'legislative changes aimed at strengthening existing controls', and recommended that SBO should be processed in dedicated rendering facilities. The submission was copied widely within MAFF, and to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Departments and the Department of Health. ⁴⁶

4.403 Dr Cawthorne also recommended that legislation be drafted 'withdrawing the option of sterilising SBO at the place of its removal and requiring SBO to be stained with the dye Patent Blue V'. Dr Cawthorne told Mrs Browning that:

There was almost universal support for the proposal to remove the option of sterilisation and general support for the proposal that all SBO should be stained with a distinctive dye that would survive rendering and be detectable in meat and bone meal. ⁴⁷

4.404 Dr Cawthorne recommended that the legislation require 'SBO to be handled, stored, transported and processed separately from non-SBO material'. This would overcome the present lack of an 'explicit legal requirement' to this effect. ⁴⁸

4.405 He recommended requiring 'slaughterhouses, knacker's yards, collection centres, renderers and incineration plants to record the quantities (if possible the weight), origin and/or destination of SBO leaving or arriving at their premises, keep these records for two years and make them available to officials for inspection'. ⁴⁹

4.406 Dr Cawthorne also recommended the removal of the requirement that movement of SBO be covered by movement permits or accompanied by a consignment note. The existing system, under which movement permits were signed by the recipient of the SBO and then returned to the issuing authority as a check on its arrival, was criticised by industry groups. Dr Cawthorne noted that it was 'administratively complex and does not provide an effective check on the amounts of SBO removed at slaughterhouses and disposed of at rendering plants'. He said:

It is now recommended that the current permit system is replaced with spot checks by Agriculture Departments of the records that slaughterhouses, cutting plants, knacker's yards and rendering plants will be required to maintain as part of the total package of improved controls...Officials believe this [will] provide a simpler and more effective check on the amounts of SBO being removed and disposed of. ⁵⁰

4.407 Dr Cawthorne recommended that collection centres, 'where SBO may be temporarily stored en route from slaughterhouses to rendering plants', should be approved for that purpose by Agriculture Departments. Rendering plants wishing to process SBO would also have to be approved for this purpose by Agriculture Departments on condition that they:

(a) complied with new EU standards for processing of ruminant waste and (b) had the necessary facilities to handle and store SBO separately from non-SBO material. ⁵¹

4.408 The requirement for dedicated processing facilities was a proposal that had met with opposition from all renderers, except Prosper De Mulder (who had already installed dedicated facilities), and from slaughterhouse interests. They regarded such a measure as 'an unnecessary, additional financial burden now that new EU rendering standards had to be met and because charges for SBO collection and disposal would have to increase to recover the costs of installing new plant'. Dr Cawthorne explained:

Four rendering companies, who between them process 80% of all the SBO produced in Great Britain, would install dedicated lines if Ministers decided this was necessary: others could, given time, though they would have to decide whether this was financially worthwhile...The cost of installing new equipment is estimated at between £100,000 to £750,000 per plant . . . ⁵²

4.409 Dr Cawthorne described the alternative:

The alternative would be to allow renderers, as now, to continue using the same cooker to process SBO and non-SBO provided (a) it is 'purged' to remove all traces of SBO after batches of the latter have been processed, (b) both SBO derived meat and bone meal and tallow is collected separately from non-SBO products. Although this would have minimal financial consequences for the industry, if cookers are not properly purged, SBO residues could contaminate meat and bone meal produced from other animal waste and thereby undermine the other measures we are introducing to strengthen existing controls. Officials are particularly concerned about the possibility of brain tissue, with its potentially higher concentration of BSE agent, becoming mixed with non-SBO waste if the latter is not processed separately from SBO material. ⁵³

4.410 He noted that a requirement for dedicated processing of SBO would maintain the confidence of UKASTA in MBM as a feed ingredient and counter suggestions that existing controls were inadequate. However, he acknowledged that it could also strengthen the dominant position of Prosper De Mulder in England and Wales and W M Forrest in Scotland, exacerbating 'existing problems of competitiveness in the rendering industry'. Nonetheless, after 'careful consideration of all the possible consequences', Mr Meldrum and MAFF officials had decided that requiring SBO to be processed in dedicated facilities was the 'better option and is in the long term interests of both the industry and animal health'. In recognition of the likely increase in SBO collection charges, slaughterhouses, cutting plants, knacker's yards and hunt kennels were to be given the option of sending SBO direct to an incineration plant for destruction. ⁵⁴

4.411 Dr Cawthorne recommended that the legislation should prohibit the use in animal feed of tallow derived from SBO until after it had been processed by the oleochemical industry. This followed advice from SEAC that tallow subjected to the processes used by the industry was suitable for inclusion in animal feed. ⁵⁵

Consideration of Dr Cawthorne's submission

4.412 On 19 January 1995 Mr Packer, Dr Cawthorne, Mr Meldrum and a number of other MAFF officials ⁵⁶ attended a meeting with Mrs Browning, to consider Dr Cawthorne's submission. Mr Meldrum explained that the proposed measures were necessary to make the separation of SBO more enforceable. A note of the meeting circulated later recorded that:

[Mr Meldrum] was convinced that there was some accidental 'leakage' of SBO into non-SBO material, and hence into cattle feed. There had also been some evidence in the past year that the rules were not always followed. Action had already been taken on this, for example by increasing checking, but it was not possible to be there all the time. Contamination of ruminant feed with SBO-derived material had obvious implications for animal health. Mr Taylor noted that half of all BSE cases now appeared in animals which had been born after the ruminant feed ban.

Staining using the new dye could be rapidly implemented to ensure that SBO-derived products were identifiable as such. However, from the point of view of enforcement, the best way forward was to require separate lines to be used for SBO and non SBO material. It was essential to keep potentially infected material out of the feed, since comparatively small volumes of brain tissue could cause infection. ⁵⁷

4.413 The note continued:

[Mr Packer] said that it was clear that we needed to implement the proposals in [the] submission. The difficulty would be in explaining why we had not done so at the outset. Mr Hollis agreed that presentation would be crucial; the new rules could not convincingly be presented as a simplification. It was agreed that there was a need to be clear that these measures related to the animal food chain. The human food chain had been well protected.

Mrs Browning agreed that we should move rapidly towards implementation of the measures which you proposed. ⁵⁸

4.414 On 24 January 1995 Mr Lackenby wrote to interested organisations advising that Ministers were considering a range of proposed changes to the SBO controls. Mr Lackenby said that it had been decided to introduce the specific staining requirements for SBO and the amendments allowing the MHS to take over responsibility for enforcing the SBO regulations in slaughterhouses and cutting plants, ahead of the other measures under consideration. ⁵⁹

4.415 On 2 February Dr Cawthorne sought Mrs Browning's signature to the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 implementing the requirement for SBO to be stained with a distinctive dye as well as introducing amendments necessary for the MHS to assume responsibility for enforcing the 1989 Regulations, as amended, in slaughterhouses and boning plants. Dr Cawthorne referred to his submission of 9 January and Mrs Browning agreement to the introduction of the new stain. He noted in a annex to the submission that:

The requirement for all SBO to be stained with its own distinctive dye - Patent Blue V - is considered an important measure to distinguish it from non-SBO material, which is also unfit for human consumption but which unlike SBO, can be included in animal feed after processing in rendering plants. ⁶⁰

Returns on the next round of two-monthly visits pursuant to AHC 94/106

4.416 On 2 March 1995 Mr Simmons circulated a summary of the next set of returns from visits made under AHC 94/106. Mr Simmons said:

I believe that, in general, the disposal of SBO has improved at all stages and that, provided our current input is maintained, further improvements can be made. ⁶¹

4.417 Of the 348 slaughterhouses visited, 10 were reported as showing deficiencies such as the absence of movement permits, inadequate staining and poor separation. In each case, the reports indicated that either the deficiency was resolved promptly or it was taken up with the relevant local authority. The returns from rendering plants and collection centres indicated that operators appeared to be complying with the relevant legislation.