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 use of bovine spinal cord and gelatine in animal feed
Mr Carrigan alleges that people are 'cheating' with SBO
Results of the SVS visits: 'widespread and flagrant infringement'

The use of bovine spinal cord and gelatine in animal feed

4.452 Gelatine is manufactured from the bones and hides of animals including bovines. The process by which it is produced is described in vol. 13: Industry, Processes and Controls. Consideration by SEAC of the safety of gelatine in human food and medicines is described in vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood. Following the introduction of the ruminant feed ban in 1988, the use of gelatine derived from ruminants in ruminant rations was banned. Despite this, relevant scientific advice provided to the EC did not regard gelatine as posing a significant risk to animal or human health. On 7 February 1992 a report of the EC Scientific Veterinary Committee sub-Group on BSE, which assessed the risks from gelatine, was adopted. The report concluded that:

Whatever the tissue source (bone or hide) there is negligible risk from trading gelatine for technical use, for consumption or for use in cosmetics. Additional guarantees are therefore not necessary. ¹

4.453 On 27 June 1994 Commission Decision 94/381/EC was introduced, prohibiting the feeding of protein derived from mammalian tissues to ruminant species. ² The effect of this Decision was to ban the inclusion of gelatine in ruminant rations. However, it appears that the reversal of the Commission's position on gelatine was made in error. On recognition of this fact, the Scientific Veterinary Committee subsequently recommended that gelatine (along with a number of other products) should be specifically exempted from Decision 94/381/EC (see Commission Decision 95/60/EC below).

4.454 The use of gelatine in ruminant feed was raised at a meeting on 30 January 1995 between representatives of UKASTA ³ and Mr Howard, Mr Fleetwood and Dr Matthews. In the course of the discussion, UKASTA's minute of the meeting records that the potential inclusion of gelatine in ruminant rations was raised:

It was noted that this product [gelatine], which could be present in by-products of the human food industry used as an ingredient in animal feedingstuffs, contained protein, some of which could come from ruminant animals and was banned under current legislation [the ruminant feed ban]. UKASTA was to write further to MAFF on this subject. Recognising the legal position, MAFF agreed to look at this saying that further advice from the SEAC might be sought but the case would need to be supported by scientific evidence. ⁴

4.455 Miss Nelson, Feed Manager of UKASTA, subsequently wrote to Mr Fleetwood expressing UKASTA's extreme concern at the assertion that the inclusion of gelatine in ruminant feed was banned. She went on to describe the vital ingredients used in animal feed which potentially contained gelatine:

. . . gelatine is used in many human foods which are, when downgraded, subsequently recycled into animal feed, including ruminants. More critically, however, permitted additives such as vitamins A and D3 are on a gelatine beadlet. Also, we are not in a position to say whether any other feed additives contain gelatine . . .

With regard to down-graded human food in ruminant feedingstuffs, we believe that these products would amount to between 100-150,000 tonnes of raw materials per annum. We do not know how much gelatine is used in total but we have been informed that some of these human food products contain 2.5% gelatine. The use of these materials has the effect of reducing the cost of ruminant feeds to farmers by approximately £1 million per annum. ⁵

4.456 Miss Nelson asked that the position on the use of gelatine be clarified by MAFF, appropriate advice given and that SEAC's opinion be sought. ⁶

4.457 Commission Decision 95/60 was introduced on 6 March 1995. It amended Commission Decision 94/381 to permit the inclusion of gelatine (amongst other things) in all feed. ⁷

4.458 Also on 6 March 1995, Mr Eddy wrote to Mr Waldegrave informing him of the problem and that UKASTA estimated that 100-150,000 tonnes of material containing gelatine were used in ruminant feedstuffs each year. Mr Eddy made the following recommendation:

It is proposed therefore as a first step to write to UKASTA as soon as possible confirming that gelatine from mammalians cannot be used in ruminant feedingstuffs. That is clearly the current legal position and UKASTA must be alerted to the need to comply with UK and EC law on this . . .

The EC Commission have not acted on this yet but we propose raising this with them informally . . . It may well be an issue which would affect other Member States and would best be introduced as a Commission response to the scientific advice to meet an EC wide problem. ⁸

4.459 On 15 March 1995 Mr Eddy sent a minute to the Ministers and officials in MAFF, DH and the territories. In the minute he provided a summary of the previous consideration of gelatine by SEAC and the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Community in 1992. ⁹ He stated that in each case the relevant committee had concluded that the risks from gelatine were negligible. ¹⁰ He informed the Minister that:

A separate note is due to come forward shortly on proposed changes to the rules for handling SBOs which would lead to an end to the practice of removing brains from skulls. This would remove the one main concern the SEAC had in 1992 about the use of gelatine even for high risk pharmaceutical products and should help them to be even more sure that gelatine is not a risk in animal feed, but we clearly cannot anticipate their advice until they have been consulted. ¹¹

4.460 In an attached note on BSE and gelatine, Mr Eddy set out the position under EC law. He recorded that in late 1994 the Standing Veterinary Committee had considered the position of gelatine, in respect of the ban on the inclusion of mammalian protein in ruminant feed, and had unanimously decided that gelatine posed a negligible risk.

4.461 Mr Eddy sent a minute on 26 April 1995 to Mr Meldrum, Mr Baker and Mr K Taylor, Mrs Brown and Dr Cawthorne, among others. He set out SEAC's position on the use of bovine skulls and spinal column, which might contain residues of nervous tissue, in the manufacture of gelatine for use in animal feed:

The position as put by Dr Tyrrell is that the risk of some nervous tissue contaminating bone exists with the backbone as well as the skull and if we are concerned about the use of skull to produce gelatine for animal feed we should be equally concerned with the use of the backbone. He is willing to accept that there might be an argument that it is more difficult to remove the base of the brain from the skull and that the risk of cross-contamination is greater but that we cannot completely exclude any risk from the backbone. ¹²

4.462 On 22 May 1995 Mr Meldrum and others in MAFF met to discuss gelatine and, in particular, 'whether skulls and vertebrae should be excluded from its production if it was to be used for ruminant feed'. ¹³ Two days later, Dr Cawthorne informed Mr Hewson and Mr Fleetwood of concerns which had been raised at the meeting about the removal of spinal cord from vertebrae (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96 for consideration of spinal cord removal). He reported that:

Skulls present no problem as they will effectively become SBO when the new SBO Order is introduced in a few months time. The position on vertebrae is rather different and the CVO was anxious to ensure that spinal cord is properly removed from vertebrae during the slaughtering process, that meat inspectors should take particular note of this operation and prevent carcasses/parts of carcasses in which spinal cord was still in evidence in the vertebral column from entering the human/animal feed chains. ¹⁴

4.463 He noted that instructions issued to the MHS regarding SBO collection and disposal did not specifically focus on spinal cord removal, and suggested writing to Mr Corrigan on this as a matter of priority (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96). ¹⁵

4.464 On 2 June 1995 Mr Hewson minuted Mr Corrigan about the measures that could be taken to ensure that spinal cord was properly removed from bovine vertebral column that might be used in gelatine production for animal feed. Mr Hewson thought that MHIs were ideally placed to check on the proper removal of spinal cord, as the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 required that each carcass be inspected after it was split. He recommended that MHIs should draw any incomplete removal to the attention of the slaughterhouse operator, and ensure that the carcass did not leave the premises without proper removal of the spinal cord being carried out. ¹⁶

4.465 Accordingly, on 5 June 1995 Mr Corrigan circulated an MHS Information Note to all MHIs and OVSs, drawing their attention to the relevant provisions of the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989. He emphasised that MHIs should draw the attention of the operator to any incomplete removal of spinal cord, and ensure that the carcass did not leave the premises without proper removal of the spinal cord. ¹⁷

4.466 On 12 June 1995 Mr Eddy put forward a submission to Mrs Browning copied to Mr Waldegrave and to senior MAFF officials. He noted:

The CVO has recently become concerned about the possibility that there could be a loophole allowing SBO to enter the food chain for animals through knacker's yards and hunt kennels. In particular he is concerned about the adequacy of removal of the spinal cord from the vertebral column . . .

In slaughterhouses we are reasonably confident that the spinal cord is properly removed. The Meat Hygiene Service are present on a routine basis and have clear instructions to give priority to ensuring that this is done. In knacker's yards and hunt kennels there is no routine presence and the main oversight is from a monthly visit from the State Veterinary Service. Secondly one has to recognise that in some cases it may be more difficult to ensure complete removal of the spinal cord in the type of carcass handled in knacker's yards and hunt kennels. In cases where animals have been dead for some time decay may have already set in and this could make it more difficult to separate the tissues than in freshly killed and dressed animals which are the only ones handled in slaughterhouses. On balance therefore the CVO now feels that we need to extend the prohibition on skulls to a prohibition on the splitting of the vertebral column and removal of the spinal cord in animals being processed in hunt kennels or knacker's yards. ¹⁸

4.467 The concern over the inclusion of gelatine in animal feed led to a paper on its use in ruminant feedstuffs being submitted to SEAC for consideration at its meeting on 21 June 1995. ¹⁹ When SEAC had considered the issue of gelatine in 1992, the discussion was limited to its inclusion in pharmaceutical products rather than in human or animal foods. SEAC was asked to agree to an exemption allowing the use of gelatine in ruminant feed, in line with EU Commission Decision 95/60/EC. The minutes of the meeting record that it had been recognised that the position was a delicate one as the existing ban was being inadvertently breached. Dr Kimberlin noted that the issue really concerned SBOs and the 'logic hinged on the proper removal' of them. 'If this was not being done satisfactorily, there was a risk.' Particular concerns were raised about the removal of brain from the skull, which SEAC was informed would be addressed by proposed legislation, and the removal of spinal cord, which Mr Eddy said would be prohibited in knackeries and hunt kennels following the introduction of the new orders. Dr Tyrrell drew attention to the wider implications of the issue and queried whether the Committee could rely on the tightening of the SBO regulations. SEAC's agreement to the exemption was subject to adequate controls on SBO. A holding position was taken until the new SBO orders were in place and there was satisfactory feedback on slaughterhouse practices. ²⁰

4.468 On 27 June 1995 Dr Kimberlin wrote to Mr Eddy, in his capacity as 'an independent MAFF consultant rather than as a member of SEAC, so as to avoid having to discuss the matter with colleagues'. He made suggestions for improving the monitoring of the SBO regulations. Dr Kimberlin noted that the brain and the spinal cord were by far the most infective of the SBO tissues. He was concerned that recording the weight of all the SBO removed in a slaughterhouse at the end of the day did not take into account the disparity in the weights of the different tissues. The total weight would be dominated by the intestines, and absence of the lighter but more infective brain and spinal cord would not be noticed. He suggested that monitoring of the SBO ban should concentrate on the measurement of the weight of brain and spinal cord removed from carcasses. In conclusion he said:

Neither I nor anyone else would find it easy to justify a relaxation of the beef trade rules without really sound data to indicate that the SBO ban is being implemented fully. Good collection and staining records of spinal cords, the number of bovine heads, plus the combined weights of other offals would be an excellent way to address this problem. ²¹

4.469 Mr Fleetwood, who had received Dr Kimberlin's letter, wrote to Dr Cawthorne on 30 June 1995. He said that he believed that the proposed new SBO Order would adequately address concerns about bovine brains. With regard to the spinal cord, he noted with interest the suggestion that its removal should be audited by virtue of a separate weight tally. Mr Fleetwood thought that the removal of spinal cord was a simple matter for MHS inspectors to check under existing arrangements. ²²

4.470 On 4 July 1995 Mr Eddy also wrote to Dr Cawthorne. He stressed that the problems associated with spinal cord did not end at the point at which it was removed from the carcass:

In order to be able to demonstrate that there is no risk to public or indeed to animal health, particularly I suspect the latter, it needs to be shown that all of those spinal cords are properly treated as SBOs and can't end up for rendering or worse for fat reclamation. ²³

4.471 Dr Cawthorne replied two days later, agreeing that it was vital that brain and spinal cord were 'somehow singled out for particular attention'. However, he did not want to focus only on them and ignore the legislative requirements in relation to intestines. He suspected that greater opportunities existed to circumvent legislative controls on their disposal than existed with the other classes of SBO. He was most concerned to address the 'obvious fault' detected in the recent survey of SBO collection and disposal in slaughterhouses (presumably the deficiencies in separation and staining of SBO) through direct approaches to the MHS and follow up surveys by SVS staff. ²⁴

4.472 The Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995, which came into force on 15 August 1995 (see paragraph 4.526 below), prohibited the removal of spinal cord except in a slaughterhouse or for the purposes of veterinary scientific examination. ²⁵ The consequence for knacker's yards and hunt kennels was that all bovine vertebral columns were now effectively SBO, by virtue of the presence of the spinal cord, and could no longer legally be used in animal feed. The 1995 Order also provided that the skull of a bovine animal over 6 months of age was to be disposed of as SBO. This effectively prevented the skull from being used for the purpose of the production of gelatine.

4.473 Following reassurances from MAFF, SEAC agreed that gelatine could be regarded as free of SBO and therefore approved the exemption allowing gelatine to be used in animal feed at its meeting in September. ²⁶ SEAC reconsidered this advice at its meeting in November 1995, following discovery of problems of compliance with SBO controls. ²⁷ SEAC considered a further paper on gelatine manufacturing processes at its meeting on 8 March 1996. ²⁸ The Committee was satisfied that the manufacturing process was adequate to reduce any risk of contamination by BSE to a negligible level (see vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood). ²⁹

4.474 Gelatine was expressly excluded from the definition of 'protein' under the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1996, which came into force on 1 August 1996, thus allowing for its inclusion in foods for ruminants. ³⁰

4.475 Mr Eddy has informed the Inquiry that after March 1996, research revealed that lower levels of inactivation were achieved in the gelatine manufacturing process than initially thought. Mr Eddy said:

You will also wish to be aware of the fact that the assessments were based on studies undertaken for the gelatine manufacturers in Europe by a private research contractor and that further work by this group resulted in reassessment indicating rather lower levels of inactivation in the gelatine manufacturing process. This arose after March 1996 and neither I, nor, as far as I am aware, anyone in this Department or, I believe, anyone on SEAC, would have been aware of those results at an earlier time when the risk assessments were undertaken or when SEAC's pre-March 1996 discussions were taking place on gelatine. At present all gelatine for food, animal feed, pharmaceutical and cosmetic use manufactured in the United Kingdom is produced from imported raw material or non bovine material. Bovine raw material is still used to manufacture gelatine for technical purposes, primarily photographic film. This is in order to meet EU export standards which in this sector apply to UK domestic production for practical reasons. ³¹

4.476 Consideration of the implications of the inclusion of gelatine in animal feed is discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume.

Mr Carrigan alleges that people are 'cheating' with SBO

4.477 On 12 June 1995 Mr Meldrum received a letter from Mr Peter Carrigan, whose company operated gut rooms in slaughterhouses under contract, regarding perceived gaps in the SBO legislation. Mr Carrigan wrote:

Put simply, people have cheated, and will continue to do so because the legislation, updated though it may be, has gaps in it large enough to accommodate a horse and cart. Because of that S.B.O. will still be included in 'meal' and the cycle remains unbroken. ³²

4.478 Mr Carrigan described some of the practices that might conceivably be employed by unscrupulous slaughterhouses disposing of intestines, in order to 'fix' the weight calculations designed to ensure that the correct amount of SBO was seen to be removed from slaughterhouses.

4.479 Mr Carrigan said in a statement to the Inquiry that:

. . . there were companies, including my own, which were entirely scrupulous in the handling of [SBO] materials. There were however others, contractors and renderers alike, who continued to handle [SBO] as if regulations did not exist. Indeed for as effective as the MAFF inspections and policing of abattoirs and rendering plants were undertaken, the regulations might not have existed at all. ³³

4.480 In a minute to Mr Taylor on 26 June 1995, Dr Cawthorne discussed a draft response to Mr Carrigan's letter. ³⁴

4.481 Dr Cawthorne recognised that Mr Carrigan had a 'good point' about the possibility of fraud and suggested a number of measures that could be built into SVS/MHS standing instructions, to counter the possibility of fraud. Dr Cawthorne's minute ended:

It goes without saying that we rely heavily on MHS staff to police the regulations in slaughterhouses. If we can't rely on them to enforce them and be alert to fraud, we will never get on top of the problem. ³⁵

4.482 Ultimately, it was Mr Meldrum who, on 28 June 1995, responded to Mr Carrigan. He explained that the use of weight checks was only one of a number of measures which had been introduced or were proposed for the control of SBO. He continued:

We will seek to ensure that correct removal and storage of SBO at slaughterhouses will be rigorously enforced by Meat Hygiene Service staff and that MAFF State Veterinary Service staff carry out regular, spot checks of all other points in the collection and disposal chain to monitor compliance. ³⁶

4.483 A meeting to discuss SBO controls was held on 30 June 1995 between MAFF officials and representatives of UKRA and Prosper De Mulder. Mr K Taylor noted that the new SBO Order would tighten up procedures throughout the disposal chain and would also affect hunt kennels and knackers. A note of the meeting recorded that:

In response UKRA felt that they were doing as good a job as possible in the circumstances and voiced their concerns that the staining of material with Patent Blue in slaughterhouses is inadequately policed. PDM felt that the SBO legislation had never been policed to a satisfactory degree. ³⁷

4.484 UKRA raised two concerns in relation to the consultation letter issued on 9 May on the proposed SBO changes:

First, they were concerned about the increase in quantity which the inclusion of skulls as SBO would bring about - estimated about 20%. UKRA needed to know where the goalposts were in relation to definition of SBO in deciding plant size . . .

UKRA's second concern was the fact that those companies wishing to install dedicated SBO lines would have a long lead in time before the equipment is delivered . . . They also said that no company would be prepared to install costly equipment until it is clear what exactly is required in the way of dedicated lines or dedicated plants . . .

. . . MAFF asked that individual companies should, preferably within the next ten days, prepare costings and an estimate of the timescale for installation at their plant(s). On receipt of this commercially confidential information MAFF would assess the overall situation and decide on the best way forward. ³⁸

Results of the SVS visits: 'widespread and flagrant infringement'

4.485 On 4 July 1995 Mr Fleetwood sent Mr Meldrum the summary of returns for the period of national surveillance undertaken at slaughterhouses between 31 May and 23 June, pursuant to AHC 95/74. Of the 392 slaughterhouses visited, failure to comply fully with the rules on SBO staining were found in 65 per cent, and failure to comply fully with the SBO separation requirements were found in 14 per cent. The survey supported observations from the field that 'significant amounts of SBO [had] been leaving slaughterhouses . . . either inadequately or incorrectly stained, or not stained at all'. ³⁹ Mr Fleetwood noted that some of the problems seemed to have arisen recently as a consequence of the requirement to change from Black PN to Patent Blue V, but that this did not seem to be an 'adequate explanation for those premises that [were] failing to stain at all'. ⁴⁰

4.486 Problems concerning separation of SBO were less extensive but more serious. The following examples were given:

SBOs are separated but then mixed with other offals and presumably rendered for animal feed or melted for fat . . . brain and/or spinal cord appears to be involved.

Plant staff openly indicate that they did not know that most of the intestine was SBO and mix it with other offal . . .

The amount of SBO consigned off the premises is not consistent with the number of cattle slaughtered . . .

Unstained SBO was found in unmarked drums . . . and possibly indicate the problems alleged by [Mr Carrigan].

. . . storage of SBO has been inadequate and may have led to accidental mixing. ⁴¹

4.487 In conclusion, Mr Fleetwood wrote:

The overall impression of this snapshot view of the industry is that there is widespread and flagrant infringement of the regulations requiring staining of SBO. Insofar as this may reflect the general attitude of the industry to controls on SBO, it is of concern. Although the problems with separation are less extensive, there are grounds for suspecting that the highest risk tissues (brain and spinal cord) have been mixed with other by products and processed for animal consumption. The destination of some of the by-products also process fat into grade 2 tallow and although there is no direct evidence, it is possible that SBO may have been incorporated in products rendered into high grade tallow and subsequently used for human consumption. Apart from these specific problems, a careless attitude to separation and disposal seems to be prevalent and it is probably leading to accidents during disposal. ⁴²

4.488 This report prompted further action within MAFF. Mr Eddy responded with a minute to Mr Meldrum on 6 July 1995, copied to Mr Haddon, Mr K Taylor, Dr Cawthorne, Mrs Brown, Mr D Taylor, Mr Fleetwood and others. He expressed his concern at the extent of the problems identified with separation and staining of SBO noting:

More than half the plants are not meeting the statutory requirements on staining, with 96 not staining at all. More important, 60 of the 435 plants visited are not separating SBO correctly. Of these, in at least 16, there was no evidence of separation of SBO from other materials. ⁴³

4.489 He also identified certain problems with enforcement. He stated that the 'enforcement situation' had to be 'tightened up' and suggested the implementation of a programme to 'ensure education of the plant operators and effective operation of procedures by the MHS'. Discussions with the MHS were also contemplated:

MAFF has bid in PES [Public Expenditure Survey] 1995 for a sum of £150,000 to the MHS to cover the costs of SBO enforcement but there is no allocation in the current financial year. Since this amounts to only about half an hour per month it is possible that the MHS will argue that they need more resources to be able carry out the operating instructions effectively. However, in the first instance, we believe we should try and agree with them a strategy for making the best use of the time available. The top priority should be to undertake a programme of education with the plant operators to ensure that they understand fully the requirements of the existing legislation.

. . .

The second element is to ensure that the MHS have a clear order of priorities for enforcement of the SBO controls, paying attention first to the treatment of brains, then spinal cord, then guts. It may also be necessary, because of the public health implications, to send SVS staff into slaughterhouses every few months to audit the arrangements, at least until we are satisfied that they are being properly applied and enforced by the MHS. ⁴⁴

4.490 Mr Crawford also commented on Mr Fleetwood's report. On 11 July 1995 he minuted Mr Meldrum expressing extreme concern that the picture painted in the report differed to such an extent from that of previous reports. He saw it as essential that the information was made available to field staff, so that they could carry out a detailed investigation to discover why there was such a difference. He said that he found it difficult to make any meaningful comment until these investigations were complete, but did suggest that one possible explanation for the difference between this and earlier reports might be that it was based on unannounced visits by VOs, rather than AHOs, who were able to ask 'more searching questions'and who may have found deficiencies not present at announced visits. He also noted that the withdrawal of the local authority inspectors, who sometimes applied the stain to SBO, may have also led to a decline in staining. ⁴⁵ Mr Crawford said that SVS field staff had suggested that the MHS staff did not appear to be fully aware of the SBO requirements - 'If that should be so, it is essential that they are made aware of these requirements in view of their front line role in slaughterhouses and other meat premises'. ⁴⁶

4.491 On 7 July Dr Cawthorne minuted Mr Meldrum explaining that renderers would require six months to establish dedicated lines for SBO processing:

The 6 month delay may sound overly long but we should bear in mind that there are major problems in slaughterhouses regarding the separation and staining of SBO. Correction of these deficiencies must be given high priority and until we are satisfied that the separation and collection of SBO is taking place in slaughterhouses, the importance of a dedicated processing line is diminished. The other 'safeguard' is that all rendering plants processing ruminant material have been validated to the new standard so that even if SBO and a non-SBO are mixed, the degree of inactivation should be relatively high. ⁴⁷

4.492 On 12 July 1995, AHC 95/101 was issued to all DVOs as an addendum to AHC 95/74. It outlined revised procedures for the follow-up visits to those slaughterhouses where problems had been found with staining or separation of SBO material during the first round of visits. It noted that where divisions had a significant number of second visits to be made, priority should be given to those premises where problems with separation of SBO had occurred. In addition, a weekly summary of the results of all follow-up visits was to be sent to Mr Fleetwood at Tolworth on a weekly basis. It asked that a retrospective return be made for those follow-up visits that had already taken place. It also noted that further instructions would be sent concerning further follow-up visits to premises where problems had been recorded on the initial follow-up (see paragraph 4.522 below). ⁴⁸