Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
2. The ruminant feed ban, 1989-96
The chronological account
Developments in 1996 - the mandatory sampling regime is implemented

Developments in 1996 - the mandatory sampling regime is implemented

Routine testing at feedmills commences

2.540 Animal Health Circular 96/5, which instructed SVS staff on measures to implement the mandatory sampling regime, was issued on 16 January 1996. ¹

2.541 On 23 January 1996 Miss Nelson wrote to Dr Matthews to ask it if would be possible for MAFF to advise farmers of the need to label their feed bins. She commented that this would 'help minimise the risk of feedingstuffs going into the wrong bins on farm'. ²

2.542 Two days later Dr Matthews assured Miss Nelson that UKASTA's suggestion would be taken on board. He explained that due to other events, the draft leaflet to be issued to farmers had slipped in priority, 'but with any luck it should reach the top of the pile again in the next couple of weeks'. ³

2.543 In his letter Dr Matthews enclosed AHC 96/5 and explained that he hoped to notify company head offices of any positive results before the mill itself was notified, as he could not cope with notifying all results to headquarters first. He suggested that 'If we start sampling in the week starting 5 February I don't expect to have any results to issue until probably the last week of February'. ⁴

2.544 On 29 February 1996 UKASTA advised its members via Feed Circular 699 that:

The statutory monitoring of feedmills to test for the inclusion of ruminant protein in ruminant feedingstuffs commenced earlier this month. The samples of ruminant feedingstuffs are being analysed by the ELISA technique. MAFF is to advise the person, nominated by his/her company, in the individual mills of the results of the analysis. ⁵

Progress on Advisory Note to farmers

2.545 Meanwhile, the draft revised Advisory Note for farmers was submitted to Mrs Browning on 6 February 1996. Dr Render's covering minute noted that:

The Parliamentary Secretary will recall . . . three important areas which needed to be addressed if we were to eliminate BSE. All related to avoiding the contamination of cattle feed with potentially infectious material; first, by ensuring rigorous controls on SBOs in slaughterhouses and rendering plants, secondly by avoiding cross contamination in feedmills and thirdly by avoiding cross contamination of feed on farms. The first of these points has been addressed by increased controls and SVS surveillance in slaughterhouses and rendering plants. The second element is being addressed through our surveillance regime in feedmills . . . This advisory note to farmers addresses the third element. ⁶

2.546 Dr Render explained that it was hoped that if farmers followed the guidance, the risk of cross-contamination on farm would be reduced 'to an absolute minimum'. He also advised that SEAC had endorsed 'its message on best practice for the handling of feed on farms' and 'emphasised the need for the design of the leaflet to highlight the importance of the message on feed handling'. It was proposed that the leaflet be issued to all farmers in England and Wales by mailshot. ⁷

2.547 Since SEAC's consideration of the draft note (see paragraphs 2.527-2.528), the heading 'The Feed Ban' had been changed to 'How to avoid BSE'. The paragraph introducing the 'seven key points to remember' read:

Contaminated feed has been identified as the route by which BSE is transmitted. There is no evidence that the disease can be transmitted by other means, such as from cow to cow or cow to calf. The ruminant feed ban, introduced in July 1988, has worked well and the incidence of BSE is not falling rapidly. Unfortunately, there continue to be a number of cases of BSE in cattle born after the feed ban, suggesting that it has not been completely effective. There are a number of simple steps which you can take now to eliminate this risk. ⁸

2.548 Dr Render was informed the next day that Mrs Browning was content with the draft Advisory Note, subject to the inclusion of a paragraph on the consequences of not complying with the rules, pointing out that it was in the industry's best interests to comply. ⁹

2.549 It appears that the Advisory Note was overtaken by subsequent events and were not issued until September 1996. By this time, the mammalian meat and bone meal ban had been implemented (see paragraphs 2.554-2.557), so the section on avoidance of cross-contamination of feed on farm was not included in the Advisory Note. ¹⁰

First round of results from ELISA testing in feedmills

2.550 On 1 March 1996 Mr Eddy briefed Mr Hogg on the first round of results from the testing of ruminant feed for mammalian protein. Out of 54 samples from 25 mills, three had tested positive for porcine material, each from separate mills. Each mill produced pig and poultry rations and did not have separate lines for their ruminant feed production. MAFF did not intend to prosecute. Instead, the companies involved would be informed and further samples would be taken to ensure they investigated and remedied the source of cross-contamination. Mr Eddy concluded:

The other issue which arises is the question of informing Parliament. These are preliminary results from the first set of samples in the testing regime and although we clearly need to provide this information at the right time I would recommend that we did not put the information forward in response to an inspired PQ until we have completed a more representative amount of testing. That would point to an inspired PQ in late March. The alternative would be to include the test results in the May Progress Report to Parliament. Although we clearly should mention this in that report we could be open to criticism if we did not make the results known before then in an inspired PQ. ¹¹

2.551 On 5 March 1996 the private secretary to Mrs Browning minuted Mr Hogg, stating that:

Mrs Browning is most concerned that these tests have thrown up positive results, and feels that the industry should be told in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable and that we expect 100% compliance with the rules. She has suggested, subject to the Minister's views, that she should meet the companies concerned to reinforce this point. ¹²

2.552 Mr Hogg's response on 7 March 1990 was that it was a good idea, but 'we might find it impossible to achieve total avoidance of contamination'. ¹³

2.553 Dr Render subsequently advised Mrs Browning that cross-contamination had now been detected in four feedmills - there had been another positive result since Mr Eddy's minute on 1 March 1996. In each case, contamination was with porcine material. He suggested that since the companies concerned were unlikely to attend a joint meeting, Mrs Browning might consider meeting UKASTA instead. Dr Render continued:

The State Veterinary Service is currently investigating with the plant owners the reason for the positive results. These are not likely to have resulted from deliberate flouting of controls, nor from gross negligence, but rather from relatively minor technical problems with the manufacturing process. These could take some time to track down. It would be useful to have details of the sorts of problems which have been found in feedmills and the steps that can be taken to rectify them prior to any meeting with UKASTA as this would give the Parliamentary Secretary a constructive and positive message to get across as well as stressing the need for full compliance. We would therefore further recommend that any meeting with UKASTA is set up for after Easter to allow time for these investigations to be finalised. ¹⁴

Mammalian meat and bone meal ban is implemented

2.554 During its 27th meeting on 16 March 1996, SEAC considered a total ban on the use of MBM on farms, as part of its response to its conclusion that a new form of CJD, possibly linked to BSE, had been discovered (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96). The minutes of the meeting record:

The epidemiological evidence of the born after the ban cases suggested that there had been appreciable exposure of cattle to BSE infectivity after the ruminant feed ban and the most likely explanation of this was cross-contamination from other feed and then inadvertent feeding of that contaminated feed to cattle. Also the results of the rendering experiments suggested that complete inactivation, certainly of the scrapie agent, by conventional rendering methods was not practical. Finally, the recent findings of cross-contamination in feedmills suggested that this would be difficult to avoid. A ban on the use of all meat and bone meal of mammalian origin in farm animal feed would remove the possibility of new infection of cattle in the future and so bring the BSE epidemic to a close as quickly as possible. This would solve the animal health problem and by doing so, reduce any risk to public health . . . The Committee agreed to recommend that the use of mammalian meat and bone meal in feed for farm animals should be prohibited. ¹⁵

2.555 This recommendation was made public in a statement on 20 March 1996. ¹⁶ The next day UKASTA announced that it would act immediately to 'eliminate mammalian meat and bone meal from all UK farm animal feeds' in anticipation of legislation being implemented at a future date. ¹⁷

2.556 The anticipated ban was given regulatory effect on 29 March 1996, when The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Amendment) Order 1996 came into force. Article 2 of the Order amended the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991:

After article 12 there shall be added the following article -

Mammalian meat and bone meal

12A - (1) No person shall -

(a) knowingly sell or supply for feeding to livestock, fish or equine animals any feedingstuff in which he knows or has reason to suspect any mammalian meat and bone meal has been incorporated;

(b) after 4th April 1996 feed to livestock, fish or equine animals any feedingstuff in which he knows or has reason to suspect that any mammalian meat and bone meal has been incorporated.

. . .

(3) No person shall use any mammalian meat and bone meal in the preparation of any feedingstuff for livestock, fish or equine animals.

(4) No person shall use any mammalian meat and bone meal in the preparation of feedingstuff for any animal in premises where feedingstuff for livestock, fish or equine animals is prepared. ¹⁸

2.557 'Livestock' was defined as 'any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for use in the farming of land'. Mammalian meat and bone meal meant 'proteinaceous material derived from the whole or part of any dead mammal by a process of crushing, cooking, and grinding'. ¹⁹