Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Introduction of the MHS and the new stain for SBO
The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995
The HAT exercise is established
Failure to stain SBO becomes apparent
Consultation on the remaining proposed legislative changes
SVS begins unannounced visits to check on staining

4.418 AHC 95/40 was issued on 24 March 1995. It advised that the Bovine Offal Prohibition (Amendments) Regulations 1995 (the 1995 Regulations) would come into force on 1 April 1995. The circular stated that:

SVS Officers must, as a first priority, visit all slaughterhouses and head boning plants in their area at which SBO may be expected to arise. They should explain the requirements of the new Regulations and ensure that the new stain is brought into use without undue delay. ¹

4.419 As a second priority, SVS staff were required to visit all knacker's yards and hunt kennels to ensure the same awareness and compliance with the new Regulations as at slaughterhouses. ²

4.420 The circular enclosed an inset containing new instructions on the disposal and processing of SBO. It noted that:

A direct responsibility is also placed on those persons supplying feedingstuffs (eg rendering plants) and those feeding animals (eg hunt kennels) to ensure that SBO or protein derived from it is kept out of the animal feed chain.

An indirect responsibility is placed on those handling and transporting SBO (eg collecting centres and transport companies) to ensure that SBO remains identified at all times and is kept separate from materials destined for animal feedingstuffs.

SBOs from any source (abattoir, knackery, hunt kennel, etc) should be kept separate from other offals. Any mixing with SBO means that other offals acquire SBO status. After staining, SBO should be transported, stored and processed separately, in accordance with a code of practice issued by MAFF . . . Finally, protein derived from SBO should be disposed of under a licence issued by the local Animal Health Office. ³

4.421 The circular also noted that responsibility for auditing and directing SVS activity on SBO had passed to the SVO (Protein Processing) at Tolworth. ⁴

4.422 In addition, Meat Hygiene Division, Branch A also issued an FSH circular to local authorities which discussed the staining requirements. It stated:

Enforcement authorities are asked to ensure that SBO in knacker's yards and hunt kennels is properly stained with blue dye before it is removed from the site. If SBO is mixed with other unfit waste for dispatch to the renderers, etc all material should be regarded as SBO and stained blue. ⁵

4.423 This advice was criticised in a written statement given to us on behalf of the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS). It stated that:

This advice should have given some indication of the inspection frequency MAFF expected at knacker's yards and hunt kennels in order to ensure proper staining. The Ministry did not give any information in the Circular about what the SVS were doing as far as providing information and advice to businesses was concerned. ⁶

The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995

4.424 The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (the 1995 Regulations) came into force on 1 April 1995. ⁷ The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was launched as an executive agency of MAFF on the same day (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-1996). It took over from local authorities responsibility for meat inspection, supervision of licensed fresh meat premises, and enforcement of the legislation relating to meat hygiene, BSE/SBO controls and animal welfare in slaughterhouses and head-boning plants. ⁸ The new service would also be responsible for the day-to-day checks on SBO disposal at these sites.

4.425 The 1995 Regulations provided that:

16. These regulations shall be enforced and executed -

in relation to premises licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (a), by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to England and the Secretary of State in relation to Wales;

in any other case, by each food authority within its area, . . . ⁹

4.426 The 1995 Regulations also amended the definition of 'staining' to require SBO to be stained with a new distinctive food colour, Patent Blue V, instead of Black PN. ¹⁰

4.427 Mr Meldrum said in oral evidence:

In 1995 quite clearly we had a problem, in April 1995 and May 1995 on staining of SBOs, when we brought in the new stain . . . Patent Blue V. And quite clearly there was a problem then. Whether it was a problem because of a changeover or a problem because of a new stain or a problem because in the past local authorities had sometimes stained the material when they were responsible, I do not know. One could only again work on the basis of what you see. What we saw in 1995 raised extreme concern in my mind about the utilisation of SBOs and where they went. ¹¹

The HAT exercise is established

4.428 In his statement to the Inquiry, Mr Peter Soul, Director of Operations at the MHS, ¹² said that:

Following the launch of the MHS on 1 April 1995, a major exercise was undertaken to benchmark standards in the meat industry. This exercise was dubbed the 'Hygiene Advice Team' or 'HAT'.

Teams of experienced Official Veterinarians and Senior Meat Hygiene Inspectors visited all full throughput abattoirs during 1995 and conducted a thorough and detailed inspection of hygiene and animal welfare standards and made an assessment of manning levels. ¹³

4.429 The results of the Hygiene Advice Team (HAT) audit exercise are described in vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-1996.

Failure to stain SBO becomes apparent

4.430 The requirement to stain SBO with the new Patent Blue V stain had been in place for one month when reports of non-compliance began to surface. On 2 May 1995 Mr Peter Hewson, SMHA in Meat Hygiene Veterinary Section, wrote to Mr Philip Corrigan, MHS Head of Operations, with information that the majority of SBO was arriving unstained at rendering plants. The minute was copied to Mr Meldrum, Mr Baker, Dr Cawthorne, Mr Fleetwood and Mr Penny. Mr Hewson said:

It is clear to us that local authorities were not implementing the staining requirements of the SBO regulations with the diligence we would have expected. In many instances they appear not to have been insisting SBO was stained and were not making follow-up enquiries when unstained SBO was received at its final destination. ¹⁴

4.431 Mr Hewson suggested that 'the situation may have worsened since the old black dye was replaced by the more expensive Patent Blue V'. He asked that MHS staff be reminded urgently of their responsibilities, which were comprehensively set out in chapter 10 of the MHS Operations Manual. He added that Mr Corrigan might wish to remind MHS staff that it was not their responsibility to do the staining themselves, as this was understood to be happening at some premises. ¹⁵

4.432 On 3 May 1995 Mr Fleetwood, who was now responsible for monitoring the enforcement of the SBO controls, minuted Mr Meldrum ¹⁶ about reports from the rendering industry that not all SBO arriving at rendering plants was stained with the Patent Blue V dye. Some appeared to be unstained, some fully stained and some stained with an inappropriate colour. In addition, some non-SBO material was being stained with the Patent Blue V dye. Mr Fleetwood wrote that 'the allegations appear to suggest that local authorities have taken a lackadaisical approach to enforcement in recent times'. ¹⁷

4.433 On the same day, Mr Fleetwood also minuted Dr Cawthorne ¹⁸ setting out in full the details of allegations about the non-staining of SBO arriving at rendering plants. He explained that he had received a telephone call from Prosper De Mulder on 28 April 1995 and was told that almost all of the SBO arriving at its plant for processing was unstained. Mr Fleetwood noted that as this plant processed approximately 60 to 70 per cent of the SBO in the country, this 'was a matter of some concern'. By coincidence, staff from the local Animal Health Office had been visiting the plant in question that week under Mr Fleetwood's instructions, examining raw material and taking samples of greaves to be tested for the SBO stain. They were able to confirm that they had seen no evidence of SBO arriving stained with Patent Blue V. Although they considered it possible that some had been stained with the Black PN stain, as this decomposed from SBO within two days, they were unable to be sure. When questioned, the plant operators alleged that they had only received two consignments of SBO stained with Patent Blue V since 1 April 1995, and that 'attempts by their buyers to ask for staining of SBO had been met with outright rejection'. ¹⁹

4.434 Mr Fleetwood's minute recorded that Mr Lackenby had approached the manufacturers of Patent Blue V, who had confirmed that stocks were available for immediate delivery and that, although some of them had received several enquiries from slaughterhouses, few orders for stain had been placed. From this Mr Fleetwood concluded that non-availability of stain was not an explanation for any failure by slaughterhouses to use it. ²⁰

4.435 Mr Fleetwood continued:

Obviously, I cannot speak for what has gone on in the past, but current evidence seems to suggest that SBO is not being stained as it should be. The problem seems to be worse with the suppliers to De Mulders which may have something to do with their gut room contracts. The problems have not yet been detected by SVS staff who continue to report that all is well. I find this puzzling, but I have a feeling that although staff are shown one thing when they visit the premises, something quite different happens the moment they leave. There may also be an element of failure on their part to get on to the cutting room or gut room floor and really look at things in detail.

. . . I can confirm that the Chief Executive of the MHS has been asked to give his staff a rap over the knuckles . . .

We are now considering whether SVS staff should separately investigate the position in slaughterhouses and head boning plants by advancing and enhancing their programme of regular visits. To this end, I have drafted an AHC for you to discuss with Senior Staff . . . I feel that enhancement of the regular programme is essential as SVS staff have, up to now, been reporting that matters are satisfactory when this is clearly not the case. ²¹

4.436 On 4 May 1995 Mr Crawford replied to Mr Fleetwood, expressing surprise that there was a significant problem of SBO arriving unstained at rendering plants, and asking whether there was any way of assessing the extent of the problem. Mr Crawford noted that SVS staff were required to visit slaughterhouses and head-boning plants every two months to inspect procedures for handling SBO material and that 'failure to stain SBO material has not been reported as a significant problem'. It was noted that Mr Fleetwood's minute appeared to be contrary to the findings of SVS staff. Mr Crawford asked whether the difficulties in staining might be due to the fact that local authorities no longer provided the service of staining and whether they were now seeing reluctance on the part of the slaughterhouse operatives to provide and use the stain. ²²

4.437 Mr Fleetwood responded to Mr Crawford on the following day:

I cannot avoid the conclusion that significant quantities of SBO are arriving at rendering plants either unstained or incorrectly stained. What I cannot be sure about is how long this has been a problem, although uncorroborated reports from the industry suggest that it is not a new phenomenon. ²³

4.438 He reiterated what he had said in previous minutes:

. . . you ask why we have had no indication of problems from field staff and . . . whether the introduction of the MHS may have had an effect. It is possible that the problem with staining is a new phenomenon in which case reports would not yet have started to filter through from the field. Possible reasons may include the fact that there are no longer [the same] LA meat inspectors to apply stain and that the plant operators have to purchase a new stain (which is not more expensive than the old one). However, I suspect that at least some of the problem is of longer standing duration in which case the lack of reported problems from the field is puzzling. I suspect that the explanation is that although staff are shown one thing when they visit a premises, something quite different happens the moment they leave. We are addressing this problem by enhancing the checks that SVS staff make when they visit a premises and by making the checks at rendering plants which triggered this issue. ²⁴

4.439 On 10 May 1995 Mr Corrigan issued an MHS Information Note to inspection staff regarding staining of SBO. It stated that information received indicated that the majority of SBO was arriving at rendering plants unstained. It confirmed that enforcement of SBO controls was now the responsibility of the MHS. Staff were reminded that physical application of the stain was not their responsibility. Details of the suppliers of Patent Blue V dye were also provided. ²⁵

Consultation on the remaining proposed legislative changes

4.440 During the first few months of 1995, a draft Order incorporating the remaining intended changes to SBO controls had been prepared by Mr Lackenby and the MAFF Legal Department, with comments from Mr Crawford, Mr K Taylor and others.

4.441 On 31 March 1995, following comments on an earlier draft, Mr Howard minuted Mr Packer with a redrafted submission for the Minister on the disposal of bovine brains and eyeballs:

Complete removal of the brain is difficult. To remove the brain the skull has to be opened and sharp edges are formed at the opening. The brain is scooped out by hand but since it is friable and firmly attached, in parts, to the interior of the skull, the brain can break up and is removed in pieces. There is a risk that skulls still containing brain tissue may be rendered into meat and bone meal and subsequently incorporated into animal feedingstuffs.

Experiments still in progress have already shown that less than 1gm of unprocessed brain from a clinically affected bovine will transmit infection when fed to another bovine . . .

We also recommend an end to the removal of eyeballs from skulls. An experiment is underway with tissue from the eye injected into mice and although the results are not yet available, we believe on balance that it would be prudent to include them now while the rules on dressing skulls are being reviewed in case there is a positive result. ²⁶

4.442 He continued:

We now have clear evidence that the amount of bovine brain needed to infect other cattle when given by mouth can be very small, and that the complete removal of the brain from bovine skulls is difficult.

4.443 He therefore sought the Minister's agreement to the proposed SBO Order which would prohibit the removal of brains and eyeballs from bovine heads.

4.444 Mr Packer forwarded this and a submission from Mr Meldrum on research results to the Minister on the same day. In his covering minute Mr Packer suggested that Mr Howard's paper fully made 'out the case for the change recommended' particularly in light of the results of the attack rate study which were set out in the second submission from Mr Meldrum. ²⁷

4.445 On 5 May 1995 the draft Order was included in a submission from Mr Eddy to Mrs Browning, along with a draft consultation letter on the intended changes. The proposed Order would replace or amend the controls set out in the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 and the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991. In particular, Mrs Browning was referred to the article dealing with skulls and eyeballs. Mr Eddy wrote:

We are particularly anxious to introduce these changes as soon as possible because of the research results on the infectivity of very small doses of BSE which make it important that we remove any risk from material being left behind in skulls . . . The Secretary will wish to note that we have proposed only a three week consultation period. This is because of the need to get these new controls in place quickly. ²⁸

4.446 The purpose of the new article prohibiting the removal of brain and disposal of the skull was explained in the draft consultation letter to interested organisations as being to:

. . . reduce still further any risk that brain material, in however small a quantity, could inadvertently be used in animal feed through the rendering of skulls which might, on occasions, possibly contain small amounts of brain. This decision has been taken in the light of evidence emerging from experiments that cattle are susceptible to infection by very small oral doses of BSE infected material. It reflects Ministers' determination to take an extremely cautious line and to avoid any risk whatsoever of potentially infectious material entering the animal feed chain. ²⁹

4.447 The draft consultation letter also stated that the overall aim of the proposed Order was:

. . . to combine in a single Order all the controls over the collection and disposal of SBO from where it is produced in slaughterhouses, knacker's yards, hunt kennels or any other place through to its destruction in incinerators or if it is rendered, the final disposal of the protein and tallow produced. ³⁰

4.448 Mrs Browning responded 'very quickly' that she was 'happy with [Mr Eddy's] proposed presentation of the issues and that he should send out the consultation document as early as possible'. ³¹ The consultation letter was distributed to all relevant parties on 9 May 1995. ³²

SVS begins unannounced visits to check on staining

4.449 On 17 May 1995 Dr Cawthorne wrote to Mr Corrigan about the failure to stain SBO in slaughterhouses and head-boning plants. ³³ The letter noted that further inquiries by SVS staff had confirmed that the bulk of SBO was 'arriving at rendering plants unstained, inadequately stained or stained with the wrong dye'. The SVS was now beginning to report similar problems at slaughterhouses and head-boning plants. Dr Cawthorne explained that the proper separation and disposal of SBO was a key component of the Government's measures for the control of BSE:

Staining of SBO with a distinctive dye ensures that it is easily identifiable and should ensure that none of this material finds its way, deliberately or inadvertently, into the animal feed chain. Ineffective separation and staining of SBO as soon as it is removed from the carcass is significantly undermining these controls. A frequent excuse given to SVS staff by slaughterhouse operators has been that the correct stain is not available, but checks with the manufacturers have confirmed that supplies of Patent Blue V have been freely available all this year. We therefore see no reason why SBO should not be properly stained at all slaughterhouses and headboning plants in Great Britain and I would appreciate you asking your staff to insist that this legal requirement is complied with without further delay.

In view of the deficiencies that we have encountered, I have asked SVS staff to bring forward the date of their next visit to slaughterhouses and head boning plants. During the period 31 May-23 June they will make an unannounced visit to each slaughterhouse and head boning plant in Great Britain to check on the separation and staining of SBO. If they notice any shortcomings, they will notify the official Veterinary Surgeon in writing, copying the letter to his or her Regional manager. Naturally, SVS staff will not interfere directly in the operation of the plant as this is properly the responsibility of MHS staff. Where problems are encountered, however, SVS staff will make a second unannounced visit in the following two weeks. If problems are still encountered, the MHS will be asked to consider taking a prosecution. ³⁴

4.450 The action foreshadowed by Dr Cawthorne was implemented with the issue of AHC 95/74 on 19 May 1995. ³⁵ The circular explained that the 1995 Regulations required that SBO be stained with Patent Blue V. It noted that recent surveillance at rendering plants had shown that some SBO was not being stained in accordance with the 1995 Regulations. The AHC stated that every slaughterhouse known to handle bovine material was to receive an unannounced visit between 31 May and 23 June 1995, even if it had only recently received a routine visit. Each visit was to be undertaken by a VO, preferably accompanied by the AHO responsible for ongoing routine visits to the premises. SVS staff were to remain 'sensitive to the fact that MHS staff are responsible for enforcing the Regulations'. The AHC required that on each visit the VO should tour the premises, in the company of the OVS if he or she was present, and examine all aspects of the separation and staining of SBO, making the usual checks. In addition, the VO was to check the following:

That the plant possesses stocks of Patent Blue V and that it is being applied adequately, at the correct concentration by a member of the plant staff.

That any SBO in storage awaiting transport has been stained properly. This will give an indication of the quality of staining in the hours preceding the visit.

That Patent Blue V is only used to stain material that is SBO or is being mixed with SBO. ³⁶

4.451 Any evidence of SBO being separated or stained incorrectly was to be notified to the OVS in writing and the need to have the deficiency corrected as soon as possible drawn to their attention. In addition, any premises found not to be separating or staining SBO correctly, was to receive a second unannounced visit by SVS staff, approximately two weeks later. If defects were found during the follow-up visit, a letter was to be written to the OVS recommending that the MHS consider a prosecution of the slaughterhouse operator and to be copied to SVO Tolworth. ³⁷