Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Monitoring of the animal SBO ban
The establishment of a programme of SVS visits to monitor compliance with the ban
The issuing of instructions
Mr Lawrence's proposals

4.87 Shortly after its introduction, it was acknowledged within MAFF that the animal SBO ban might not, in fact, be 'self-policing' as Mr Maslin had suggested in his submission to the Minister on 21 September 1990, ¹ and some further consideration on enforcement was required. A number of practical enforcement difficulties were identified, to which we refer below.

4.88 Furthermore, as discussed above, local authorities were responsible for the enforcement of the animal SBO ban. MAFF had provided the local authority association bodies with copies of the Order and had requested that DVOs contact local authorities to ensure they were aware of the legal position. However, MAFF had no statutory responsibility for enforcing the ban and during the initial months of its operation monitoring and compliance was left to the local authorities. This left MAFF without information on the level of compliance with the SBO controls. Mr Colin Penny, Head of Branch C ² of the Meat Hygiene Division, explained:

It was the responsibility of the Environmental Health Department (or its equivalent) of the Local Authorities to carry out regular inspection visits to check on compliance with the [SBO Regulations]. There were, however, no requirements in the [SBO Regulations] for Local Authorities to report to MAFF on their enforcement actions and I am not aware that any information exists on the number of visits carried out or the results of those visits. ³

4.89 In this section, we trace the development within MAFF of a system to monitor compliance with the animal SBO ban in the field and the information which such a system provided to those in MAFF who had responsibility for the formulation of animal health policy.

The establishment of a programme of SVS visits to monitor compliance with the ban

4.90 On 29 October 1990 a meeting took place between Mr Derek Andrews, ⁴ the Permanent Secretary, and Mr Charles Capstick, ⁵ Mr Keith Baker, ⁶ Mr Lawrence, Mr Maslin and Mr Philip Davies. ⁷ One of the issues discussed at the meeting was whether the disposal of SBO was properly carried out and whether MAFF 'should take any steps to police it':

It was noted that at present there was a requirement that specified offals be separated from other waste at the slaughterhouse and then be sterilised. What this meant in practice was that this material went to be rendered. Local authorities had the responsibility of ensuring that the regulations were properly policed in the abattoirs and knackeries. The Ministry had received no indications of any problems from them, nor had MAFF staff in export approved slaughterhouses observed any. In England and Wales most of this waste went to De Mulders, who disposed of the greaves and bonemeal to landfill sites at a cost to themselves and resold the tallow. Small processors however might not have the resources to dispose of this material. Processors were charging a significant amount for specified offals, the cost of which might well increase again following the announcement on 25 September on the ban on the use of specified offals in animal feed. It had been suggested that bonemeal from specified offals could be used as fertiliser. It was thought, however, that this would be unattractive because animals might pick up the bonemeal from the land and there was uncertainty about the transmission of the disease. ⁸

4.91 The minute continued:

[Mr Andrews] asked whether the Ministry should not carry out spot checks of slaughterhouses to see how [SBO] was being processed so that Ministers, if asked, could say that they were satisfied that none of it was going into animal feed. It was noted that renderers and knackeries were registered with the Ministry and received 20 days inspection a year from veterinary and animal health officers for the purposes of salmonella control. However, the officers had no instructions to examine the way in which specified offals were being processed. The Secretary suggested that we could say that at abattoirs, local authorities had responsibility for enforcing the rules on specified offals and that we had informed them of what these entailed. Local Authorities would not, however, visit rendering plants to check on the processing of this material. He asked [Mr Lawrence] to consider whether the remits of Ministry officers enforcing the Protein Processing of Regulations in rendering plants should be extended to cover the inspection of specified offals and whether this remit should also be extended to cover knackeries, and to provide advice to him on this issue. ⁹

4.92 Mr Meldrum wrote to Mr Baker on 8 November 1990:

I would like to consider implementing some advice to Local Authorities on checking on protein processing plants on the disposal of specified bovine offals as soon as possible. It should be possible to contact DVOs and ask them to ensure that their abattoirs are complying with the Regulation and, at the same time, to ask DVOs to ensure that Veterinary Officers and AHOs who are visiting protein processing plants ensure that there is compliance with the regulations at that end also. A particular visit needs to be paid to the Hartshill plant of De Mulders at the earliest opportunity since the majority of material is being processed at that plant. ¹⁰

4.93 Discussion at the meeting on 29 October also prompted MAFF officials to consider other aspects of SBO handling and disposal in the context of the animal SBO ban. On 9 November 1990 a further meeting to discuss the disposal of SBO and other animal waste was chaired by Mr Meldrum and attended by officials from MAFF, the Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland (DANI) and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS). The note of the meeting recorded:

In England and Wales most SBO was being collected by Prosper de Mulder who were processing it into meat and bonemeal at a dedicated plant. Other renderers were collecting SBO and doing special runs in their plants. The meat and bonemeal produced was mostly being landfilled, with local authority agreement, at about £20 per tonne or going direct for incineration. De Mulder's are storing some in the hope of finding an outlet for it as a fuel. Others are looking at alternative long term disposal methods such an anaerobic digestion. ¹¹

4.94 It was agreed that SVS field staff should visit rendering plants as soon as possible to 'see how SBOs were being handled and report back'. Thereafter, monthly visits would be made. It was further agreed that Mr Baker would make the necessary arrangements and issue guidance to field staff. ¹²

4.95 Mr Stephen Hutchins, SVO (Red Meat Hygiene) Meat Hygiene Veterinary Section, described the perceived benefits of the general scheme:

Enforcement of legislation in these premises, and in other premises which handled SBOs, was a responsibility of Local Authorities. However in view of the large number of Local Authorities involved, and the consequent difficulty that could be expected in obtaining information on a tight time schedule, together with the fact that Ministers had no direct control over their activities, it was common practice to use the SVS to carry out visits to check on the manner in which BSE and meat hygiene legislation was being implemented. This allowed a rapid collection of information in a standardised manner, ensured that Ministers had access to the most up-to-date information on developing situations, and ensured that any deficiencies identified could be promptly followed up with the responsible operators and enforcement authorities. ¹³

The issuing of instructions

Instructions on the inspection of rendering plants

4.96 On 12 November 1990 Mr Baker sent a telex to all DVOs in England, Wales and Scotland, instructing them to carry out monthly visits to rendering plants to establish:

1. awareness of BSE legislation in terms of SBO;
2. how SBO was identified;
3. how SBO was kept separate;
4. how SBO was processed and kept separate from other material during processing; and
5. how processed material resulting from SBO was disposed of. ¹⁴

4.97 He asked that returns be submitted on a monthly basis to Mr Hutchins at Tolworth.

Instructions on the inspection of slaughterhouses

4.98 In respect of slaughterhouses, the telex read:

In addition, we would like to know how slaughterhouses are handling specified offals. Unless the information is available from a recent visit a visit by a SAHO/AHO [Senior Animal Health Officer/Animal Health Officer] should be arranged. A return - to Mr S C Hutchins, Tolworth Tower - on this subject is required by 17 December 1990. ¹⁵

Instructions on the inspection of knacker's yards and hunt kennels

4.99 Mr Crawford had previously issued instructions, in June 1990, to all RVOs requesting that a veterinary visit be made to every knacker's yard and hunt kennel to ensure compliance with the Meat Sterilisation and Staining Regulations, and to determine whether SBO was being sold for pet food or fed to hounds. ¹⁶ In mid-October 1990, following further concerns within MAFF about the disposal of dead animals from farms (see vol. 6: Human Health 1989-96), and the possible build-up of such material at knacker's yards or hunt kennels, the frequency of visits to these premises by SVS staff was increased and returns were required on a monthly basis. ¹⁷

4.100 Mr Lawrence was apparently unaware of this increased frequency of visits. In a minute dated 23 November 1990, he proceeded on the basis that SVS visits to knackers' premises occurred 'once a year' and suggested that this be 'bolstered with the occasional random spot check'. Mr Lawrence also suggested that steps should be taken to establish whether hunt kennels were observing the 'new rules'. ¹⁸ Following support for these suggestions from Mr Meldrum, ¹⁹ Mr Crawford confirmed on 30 November 1990 that monthly SVS visits were already being made to both knacker's yards and hunt kennels to monitor waste disposal. Mr Crawford also indicated that he was asking RVOs to 'try to obtain an increased involvement by Local Authorities'. ²⁰

4.101 On 18 December 1990, in an attempt to clear up any confusion, in a minute to all RVOs in England, Scotland and Wales, Mr Crawford said:

In recent days, we have discussed the plethora of requests which have gone out to the Field requiring them to submit returns on various aspects of the rendering and knackery operations and the problems of disposal of dead stock from farms. I am very aware that DVOs are probably thoroughly confused about what is now required of them and, by this minute, I would hope to standardise these returns. ²¹

4.102 He instructed that knacker's yards and hunt kennels should:

. . . continue to receive a monthly visit by veterinary or technical staff to report on the removal of dead stock from farms. At these visits staff should also review the procedures for the disposal of waste material generally and the specified offals in particular.

²²

Mr Lawrence's proposals

4.103 On 20 November 1990 Mr Lawrence made an informal visit to a slaughterhouse, in which Mr Peter Carrigan's company, Specialpack Limited, operated the gut room under contract. The object of the visit was to observe 'how the specified offals are being disposed of, how the different sectors were coping and whether existing controls are sufficient'. ²³ He later wrote thanking Mr Carrigan for his time:

Many thanks for the time you took with me and Peter Lackenby to see on the ground some of the problems in relation to disposal of animal waste. We both found the visit extremely useful and I will be mulling over some of the suggestions you made, particularly controls to try and ensure that material processed from specified bovine offal does not get back into the feed chain. ²⁴

4.104 One of Mr Carrigan's suggestions was that:

. . . if [MAFF] were to take the known weight of specified bovine material from a bovine and extend that, multiply it by the number of cattle killed that week or month, they would have a fairly accurate figure as to how much SBO material was being produced and then what was happening to it. ²⁵

4.105 Mr Carrigan described to us his dealings with Mr Lawrence:

Alan Lawrence was very, very concerned about the situation. I found him to be extremely helpful. He was never slow to put on overalls and wellingtons and actually go into the gut room and his usual brief was: 'show me' and we got on very well and I found him extremely diligent and very, very helpful indeed. And he did honestly listen to what we said to him. I do feel, because of what has happened subsequently, that he was not listened to as avidly as he listened to others. ²⁶

4.106 Mr Lawrence drew from his first-hand experience of a slaughterhouse and from Mr Carrigan's suggestions, when on 23 November 1990 he circulated ²⁷ a minute in response to a request from Mr Andrews:

The Secretary has asked that we provide advice on the control measures we apply to ensure that specified bovine offal and meat and bonemeal derived from it does not enter the animal feed chain. He mentioned that we would clearly be vulnerable if we were not able to provide an adequate answer . . .

The purpose of this minute is to suggest how this might need developing to make it into an effective policing system which is not open to legitimate criticism. ²⁸

4.107 Mr Lawrence outlined a range of measures that could be taken to achieve this aim. His suggestions and the discussion they prompted between MAFF colleagues are outlined below.

4.108 Mr Lawrence concluded:

Although we are taking steps to monitor the ban on the use of specified material in feed rations we still might be open to criticism. I therefore think it would be useful to discuss these issues, to see whether anything needs to be done, perhaps using this note as a basis for further discussion. ²⁹

Use of separate bins for SBO and other waste

4.109 In the minute, Mr Lawrence considered how SBO was removed from slaughterhouses:

Specified bovine offal is deposited in separate bins from other unfit material at the abattoir. This is not a legal requirement but an arrangement which enables renderers to process the material separately. If collected by renderers (as the vast majority of material is) it is required to be stained before removal to the processing plant. A movement permit is required. Operations within the abattoir are the responsibility of the local authorities. I have no firm evidence for this but I hear on the grapevine that some specified material destined for renderers is not stained when it leaves the abattoir. ³⁰

4.110 This appears to be the first time that anyone at MAFF drew attention to the fact that the animal SBO ban did not require the separation of SBO from other unfit material. Mr Lawrence noted:

Instructions have now gone out . . . so that checks can be made at rendering plants. Slaughterhouses are also to be visited. If these are made without warning it could be an opportunity to check on staining. ³¹

Audit of SBO material throughout the production chain and use of weight checks

4.111 Mr Lawrence questioned the sufficiency of the contemplated monthly visits to renderers in his minute:

The monthly visit will help to keep renderers on their toes. But I wonder whether, if there are any suspicions about their activities, more detailed checks might be instituted. I mention this because there is quite a wide discrepancy between collection charges being applied. This may simply be a reflection of market forces but it could indicate that the rules are being bent.

If additional checks were deemed necessary it would be possible to follow the production process from the abattoir. Abattoirs have records of throughput; information is also available from meat inspectors and MLC [Meat and Livestock Commission] graders. It is not difficult to calculate the weight of specified bovine offal from a given number of cattle slaughtered. The abattoir would know which renderer collected the material. This would then be followed up with the renderer i.e. was the material received and what has happened to it. Again if a certain tonnage had been received and processed it is not difficult to calculate how much meat and bonemeal would be produced - 100 tonnes of raw material would yield about 25 tonnes of meat and bonemeal. The renderer would then have to account for what happened to it i.e. if landfilled, the site used with supporting documentation. ³²

4.112 On 26 November 1990 Mr Hutchins responded to this aspect of Mr Lawrence's minute in a minute copied to Mr Meldrum and other MAFF officials. ³³ He stated that he was 'not very optimistic' about being able to detect illegal disposal of SBO 'by estimating weights of materials involved and tying this into throughputs'.

The main variable factors at the slaughterhouse will be with the head and intestinal contents. The presence or absence of this material in the consignment will have a considerable influence on the weight per animal slaughtered. There will also be considerable amounts of water present, eg from gut cleaning procedures, which will further cloud the picture. Where offals are collected from several premises, bulking up may occur, and where an intermediate storage point is used, mixing of loads can be expected. It is also likely that there will be some variation in weight between the slaughterhouse and renderer, due to loss of fluids during the journey and at loading/unloading. ³⁴

4.113 Mr Hutchins also questioned whether MAFF staff had a right of access to records of slaughterhouses and other premises for the purpose of making the necessary calculations. He suggested that field staff should be instructed to make inquiries into the 'practicality of such checks, before pursuing this route too far'.

4.114 In oral evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Baker discussed the difference that the intestinal contents could make to the weight of SBO. He pointed out that:

[Y]ou are getting a different weight of animals going through the slaughterhouse and therefore you are going to get a different weight of specified bovine material from those animals.

. . .

And the other thing, of course, to bear in mind is that it depends whether you have cleaned the intestines or you have not, because that makes a considerable weight difference as well. ³⁵

4.115 Mr Baker said that whilst he did not recall being consulted about the practical aspects of the animal SBO ban before it was introduced, he would have been unlikely to have approved the proposal of monitoring by weight:

I think I would have said it is going to be very difficult to monitor precisely whether a slaughterhouse is disposing of the sort of weight of SBO that you would expect . . . and it is also extremely difficult to make sure that they weighed it before it went and that the same weight arrived at the rendering plant. You would have to have somebody riding shotgun on the entire proceedings. ³⁶

4.116 Mr Crawford confirmed that Mr Lawrence's suggestion of using calculated weights of SBO as an audit check was discussed but not pursued by MAFF. Mr Crawford also told the Inquiry that the inquiries suggested by Mr Hutchins to assess the 'practicality' of such a scheme were never made. ³⁷

Use of a marker

4.117 In his minute dated 23 November 1990, Mr Lawrence also noted that he and Mr Kevin Taylor, Head of the Notifiable Diseases Veterinary Section, ³⁸ were pursuing the possibility of using a marker to identify SBO with Dr Ian Shaw, acting Head of Central Veterinary Laboratory's (CVL's) Biochemistry Department. Witnesses who provided evidence to the Inquiry drew a distinction between a 'marker' and a 'stain'. Mr Lowson explained that the former referred to a substance that allowed a material to be detected throughout the production process. A stain, however, would be applied at the slaughterhouse and would not necessarily survive later processing. Mr Lowson noted that if a stain had been developed that remained stable throughout production such that it was visible in animal feed, it 'would have been helpful for control purposes'. ³⁹

4.118 The possibility of using a marker to identify SBO had been raised previously. On 27 September 1990, only two days after the introduction of the animal SBO ban, Mr Lawrence had raised this issue in a minute to Mr Mike Stranks of the Bristol regional Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) office ⁴⁰ concerning identification of MBM derived from SBO in animal feed. ⁴¹ Mr Lawrence explained that Mr Meldrum had asked whether any practical means existed for identifying SBO in animal feed. On the assumption that this was impossible, Mr Lawrence asked Mr Stranks whether it would be possible to incorporate a marker in the SBO which could be recognised visually or by some sort of test. The minute was copied to Mr Meldrum, Mrs Attridge and Mr Lowson.

4.119 In reply, Mr Stranks wrote on Mr Lawrence's minute that:

Initial reactions are that it is not possible to test for individual organs/offals.

. . .

3. The best marker would be cheap and cheap to test for !! Would chromium [dioxide] fill the bill. ⁴²

4.120 DANI had also raised the need for a marker to identify SBO at a meeting on 21 September 1990. In a letter to Mr Lawrence dated 4 October 1990, Mr Gregg Shannon of DANI's Animal Health Division repeated the suggestion that the use of markers be considered to assist in the identification of SBO in MBM. ⁴³ In a minute to Mr Lowson dated 8 October 1990, Mr Lawrence discussed DANI's concerns and noted that MAFF was assessing the question of a marker for SBO material. However, discussions with UKASTA had revealed that it felt a marker would be 'impracticable'. He went on to say that he was asking CVL for advice on the possible use of chromium dioxide as a marker.

⁴⁴

4.121 The possibility of marking SBO was raised again at the meeting on 9 November 1990 which was attended by representatives of MAFF, DANI and DAFS. It was agreed that a simple, cheap marker or test (such as a dye detectable in MBM) was to be pursued with CVL by Mr Lawrence and Mr Taylor. ⁴⁵

4.122 The progress and outcome of the enquiries made by Mr Lawrence and Mr Taylor about an alternative marker for SBO are not clear. However, there is no evidence of any significant research being undertaken to find a suitable marker or alternative-colour stain for SBO material until April 1994, when Mr Simmons was instructed to research an alternative to the existing black stains ⁴⁶ (see paragraphs 4.312-4.314 below).