Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4b. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban: discussion
The failure to keep SBO separate
Monitoring by the Veterinary Field Service
Knacker's yards
Hunt kennels
Transit to renderers
Renderers

Monitoring by the Veterinary Field Service

4.746 The national surveillance of slaughterhouses that was carried out by the State Veterinary Service in and after June 1995 disclosed widespread breaches of the rules requiring staining of SBO and of the requirement to keep SBO separate from other unfit material. The question arises as to why monitoring of slaughterhouses by the SVS over the previous five years had failed to bring such findings to light.

4.747 During the earlier part of the period this is more easy to understand. A schedule of instructions to DVOs and Regional Veterinary Officers (RVOs) in relation to monitoring compliance with the Regulations that affected, or were thought to affect, slaughterhouse operations is annexed to this chapter as Annex B. Initially these were in general terms and, in particular, failed to focus on the importance of ensuring separation between SBO and other unfit material. As this was not something that the Regulations required, it is perhaps not surprising if the Veterinary Officers (VOs) did not give it attention.

4.748 Thus the proforma sent out by Mr Crawford on 18 January 1991 (see paragraph 4.129 above) asked about brain removal and about movement permits, but nothing else. The first specific instructions in relation to separation appear to have been those given by AHC 92/94 in August 1992 (see paragraph 4.150 above). Thereafter, however, the instructions in relation to monitoring grew steadily more specific and more rigorous.

4.749 AHC 94/106 issued on 29 June 1994 (see paragraph 4.340 above) required attention to separation, comparison between animals slaughtered and movement permits issued, to establish by weight analysis whether there was any shortfall, and that this should be done on unannounced visits. One might have expected monitoring on these lines to have picked up any significant 'leakage' of SBO into offal that was being consigned to renderers as 'SBO free'. And yet, two rounds of inspection in accordance with those instructions showed no significant deficiencies.

4.750 We discussed the reason for this with Mr Fleetwood. His suggestions were necessarily conjectural. They were, essentially, that whether or not visits were made by formal appointment, slaughterhouses would have had advance warning of them and taken steps to ensure that the right bins were in place and liberal quantities of stain being applied when the MAFF veterinarians arrived. ¹

4.751 On 12 August 1991 DVOs had first been instructed by AHC 91/61 to 'arrange for occasional unannounced visits' to slaughterhouses to ensure compliance with the Regulations (see paragraph 4.146 above). Mr Fleetwood's concern was that 'unannounced visits' might have fallen into a pattern, so that they were anticipated. ² He also suggested that the Animal Health Officers (AHOs) making the visits might have been fairly recent recruits to the SVS who were 'easily browbeaten' by slaughterhouse managers. ³

4.752 There may be something in these speculations, but we have not been able to form a firm conclusion as to the reasons for the discrepancy between these results and those of the national surveillance that was to follow. We are unable to accept the suggestion made by some witnesses that there was a sudden collapse of standards in the slaughterhouses. We think it more likely that, with the surveillance operation fully supported by the enforcing authority, the MHS, a more rigorous inspection was carried out by the members of the VFS.

Knacker's yards

4.753 The nature of the business carried on at a knacker's yard is described in vol. 13: Industry, Processes and Controls, Chapter 5. The essential features, for present purposes, we can summarise as follows:

1. Knackers processed fallen stock and animals that had to be put down.
2. The processing included cooking meat for pet food in a manner which constituted 'sterilisation' under the Meat Staining and Sterilisation Regulations 1982.
3. Before 1989 knackers sold residual waste to renderers, who derived from it MBM that was sold for incorporation in animal feed.

Regulation of knacker's yards

4.754 The handling of carcasses by knacker's yards was subject to the 1982 MSSR. An analysis of those Regulations is at Annex A to this chapter, together with an analysis of other regulations which are relevant to the implementation of the animal SBO ban.

4.755 The effect of the 1982 MSSR, insofar as relevant for present purposes, can be summarised as follows:

1. All knacker meat was presumed to be unfit for human consumption.
2. Knacker meat could be sold for use as pet food, provided that it was first 'sterilised.'
3. Knacker meat destined to be sent to a renderer was subject to the same regulations, including the exemptions in relation to green offal, as applied in the case of meat from an animal slaughtered in a slaughterhouse.

4.756 The 1989 Regulations defined SBO by reference to an animal 'slaughtered in the United Kingdom'. It thus did not apply to fallen stock or, arguably, animals put down on the farm rather than slaughtered in the slaughterhouse. This was logical, for under the Slaughterhouses Act 1974, animals whose flesh was intended for human consumption could only be slaughtered at a licensed slaughterhouse (see Annex A). The detailed regulations in relation to storage and removal of SBO applied specifically to slaughterhouses and not to knacker's yards. This, too, was logical. The object of the 1989 Regulations was to prevent SBO from entering the human food chain. In the case of knacker's yards that object had already been achieved by the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and the 1982 MSSR, which treated all knacker's meat as unfit for human consumption.

4.757 It had been the intention that the 1990 Order should apply to all cattle carcasses dealt with by knacker's yards, so as to render it illegal for knackers to supply the offal defined as SBO to animals. By oversight this aim was not achieved. Because the 1990 Order adopted the same definition of SBO as the 1989 Regulations, offal derived from fallen stock was not covered.

4.758 This error was rectified by the 1991 Order. This extended the definition of SBO to include tissues from cattle which had died or been slaughtered. ⁴ Fallen stock was now within the definition, and it was illegal for knacker's yards or anyone else to supply SBO from any cattle carcass for feeding to animals. So far as requirements for staining and movement permits were concerned, the governing regulations remained the 1982 MSSR, which did not distinguish between SBO and other unfit material.

Practice in knacker's yards

4.759 It is not clear on the evidence to what extent material emanating from knacker's yards was liable to enter the animal feed chain. Prior to the human SBO ban, residual material not processed by knackers for other purposes, including the material subsequently to be specified as SBO, was sold to renderers and rendered to produce MBM that was used for animal feed. Historically fallen stock accounted for around 10 per cent of the total material processed by renderers. ⁵

4.760 The voluntary SBO ban introduced by UKASTA overlooked material emanating from knacker's yards. In March 1990, however, it recommended that its members should stipulate for the purchase of MBM that was free of fallen stock. All major feed companies complied with this recommendation. ⁶ At this point, however, fallen stock continued to contribute to the MBM supplied by Prosper De Mulder to those customers - some 25 per cent - who were not observing the voluntary SBO ban. ⁷

4.761 When the animal SBO ban was introduced, it is unclear to what extent knacker's yards and renderers appreciated and took advantage of the fact that the definition of SBO did not embrace fallen stock. Mr Maslin referred to unconfirmed reports that renderers were doing so (see paragraph 4.48 above). This lacuna in the Regulations persisted until November 1991.

4.762 The wider question is whether knacker's yards may have provided to renderers, both before and after November 1991, SBO to be rendered as material fit for feeding to animals. Mr Crawford told us that his understanding was that renderers treated all material emanating from knacker's yards as SBO (see paragraph 4.59 above). Were this the case, we have difficulty in understanding why a price differential developed, whereby renderers charged more to remove SBO from knacker's yards than they did for other material. The evidence clearly establishes that this was the case, and that some knackers purported to separate SBO from other waste before consignment to renderers (see paragraph 4.61 above).

4.763 If, before 1990, some renderers incorporated fallen stock in the material from which they produced MBM supplied to feed merchants, it seems to us likely that they would have continued to incorporate material from knacker's yards that was supplied to them as SBO-free. In so doing, they would have been relying on the knacker's yards to have separated SBOs from other material. Yet knacker's yards could not be expected to be over-meticulous about the standard of removal of brain and spinal cord and would have been subject to the commercial temptation to pass off SBO as other material. The fact that the only relevant Regulations, the 1982 MSSR, drew no distinction between handling SBO and handling other material would have facilitated this. We have concluded that knacker's yards are likely to have contributed to the infective material which was finding its way, via renderers and feed compounders, into cattle feed.

Local authority enforcement in respect of knacker's yards

4.764 Mr Colin Penny was, from April 1992, the SEO head of Branch C in Meat Hygiene Division at MAFF. He told us in a statement that he understood from his staff that 'Local Authorities were reading the Regulations as applying to knacker's yards'. ⁸ Before 1989 EHOs employed by District Councils would have been visiting knacker's yards to check on compliance with the MSSR 1982. One witness told us that such visits would take place only once or twice a year. ⁹ Under the 1990 Order, as amended in 1991, Trading Standards Officers of the County Council would have been concerned to ensure that SBOs were not included in the material that knacker's yards were processing to produce pet food.

4.765 We would not have expected inspectors from either District Councils or County Councils to be concerned with the efficacy of the separation made by knacker's yards of material consigned to renderers. It was, we think, reasonably clear that there were no regulations which required this. Mr Penny referred us to a flurry of correspondence between MAFF and District Councils in 1995 in which District Councils made the point that the 1989 Regulations did not apply to knacker's yards. ¹⁰ This correspondence appears to have been stimulated by attempts by MAFF to tighten up on enforcement of the 1989 Regulations. We would not have expected District Councils, in the period between 1989 and 1995, to have been attempting to enforce the 1989 Regulations in knacker's yards (see paragraphs 4.221-4.224 above).

4.766 It appears, nonetheless, that some officers of the VFS and some District Councils may have proceeded under the erroneous belief that the 1989 Regulations applied in the case of knacker's yards and hunt kennels, notwithstanding the fact that they did not apply to offal from fallen stock. The evidence does not enable us to judge on how wide a scale such enforcement activities took place. Certainly the monitoring reports from the VFS do not suggest that attention was being focused on separation by knacker's yards of SBO from other material supplied to renderers (see paragraphs 4.219-4.252).

Monitoring of knacker's yards

4.767 On 18 December 1990 Mr Crawford sent a fax to RVOs which stated:

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. ¹¹

4.768 Mr Crawford then set out the information that should be obtained from renderers, which included 'how the specified offals are kept separate from other material'. So far as hunt kennels and knackeries were concerned, he instructed:

Hunt kennels and knackeries - until further notice, these 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. ¹²

4.769 Mr Hutchins's summary of only 23 returns received from knackers and hunt kennels, despite a reminder telex, painted a general picture of a depressed knacker industry, with an increasing number of carcasses being abandoned outside kennels, knackers and local authority tips. The report dealt with compliance with the MSSR 1982, but said nothing about SBO. ¹³

4.770 Mr Hutchins's summary of returns for the following months were in similar terms and to similar effect. His comment in May 1991 that there was considerable confusion amongst both operators and supervising authorities about the application of the legislation (see paragraph 4.235 above) was coupled with a report of requests for 'a plain man's guide' to the legislation. ¹⁴ We are not surprised at the confusion. There appears to have been no response to the request for a plain man's guide to the legislation.

4.771 Despite requests in AHC 91/55 for checks on 'handling, storage and disposal procedures for SBO', ¹⁵ no such information was to feature in the returns that were made, insofar as we have details of them, through to 1993. References to compliance with Regulations were invariably restricted to comments on the MSSR (see paragraphs 4.232-4.250 above).

4.772 This suggests to us that the VOs who were visiting knacker's yards were proceeding on the correct premise that the 1982 MSSR applied and the 1989 Regulations did not apply.

4.773 In his minute to Dr Render, Head of Branch B, Animal Health (Disease Control) Division, of 10 November 1995, Mr Fleetwood gave details of visits to 212 knacker's yards and hunt kennels in September 1995. He commented:

Although the SVS has been active in knacker and hunt premises for some time, detailed record keeping at a central level began in September this year when the new Order was introduced. ¹⁶

4.774 We suspect that detailed record-keeping began at this stage because, for the first time, there existed detailed Regulations to monitor.

4.775 The details included 51 cases when there were problems with identification, removal or separation of SBO, 66 cases of unsatisfactory staining and 75 cases of weight discrepancies in relation to SBO. These figures suggest to us that the purported separation by renderers of SBO from other matter is likely to have been unreliable and that knacker's yards were a significant source of the infective material that ended up in animal feed.

4.776 AHC 94/100 instructed DVOs that, in accordance with article 12 of the BSE Order 1991, SBO should be separated from other knackery waste material that was intended to be consigned to a rendering plant for processing into MBM that was destined to be incorporated into animal feed. DVOs were instructed to record any failure to do this on form MH4 and to bring the failure to the attention of 'the relevant enforcement authority'. ¹⁷ We have no evidence of any reports being made pursuant to these instructions.

Hunt kennels

4.777 Almost precisely the same considerations applied to hunt kennels as applied to knacker's yards. They accept fallen stock in order to provide feed for the hounds. Surplus material went to renderers. We received little independent evidence in relation to hunt kennels. Some appear to have blatantly disregarded the 1990 Order, as amended in 1991 (see paragraph 4.578 above). Insofar as they sent material to renderers which purported to be SBO-free, we feel it likely that this description would often have been inaccurate.

Transit to renderers

4.778 In his witness statement Mr Simmons told us:

In collating the returns required by AHCs 91/9 and 91/55, I became concerned that not all aspects of the disposal of SBO had been covered. I was most concerned that the handling of SBO was not being significantly monitored after its removal from the premises of origin (eg, the slaughterhouse) to its ultimate disposal (eg, landfill). This was partly because there was a split between the enforcement of various parts of the legislation that referred to SBO controls. ¹⁸

4.779 Mr Simmons's concerns were well founded. We shall shortly be considering the problems that arose in enforcing the animal SBO ban at the rendering stage. So far as transit from slaughterhouses, knacker's yards or hunt kennels to renderers was concerned, there was no local authority supervision of any kind. Transit from the slaughterhouse required an SBO movement permit, but the District Council officials considered that their duties under the 1989 Regulations were complete once the offal left the slaughterhouse - subject only to a duty to reconcile movement permits after the transit was complete. We have seen no evidence that County Councils considered that they had any role to play in enforcing the 1990 Order, as amended in 1991, before offal collected from the slaughterhouse arrived at the renderers. As we have already explained, there were no regulations which prohibited the mixing of SBO and other material in the course of their transit, other than the obligation to convey the SBO in sealed containers, which, as Mr Corbally had pointed out, was disregarded (see paragraph 4.689 above). Transit from knacker's yards and hunt kennels required no SBO movement permit at all.

4.780 Mr Simmons's remedy, as implemented by AHC 93/32, relied on monitoring by the VFS to fill the gap in the local authority enforcement cover. The 'cradle to grave' returns that VOs were required to make included confirmation that SBO was separated from other material while in transit and at collection centres (see paragraph 4.255 above). The results of these indicated, initially, that separation was satisfactory in transit and at collection centres. These results contrasted with what was found when an additional round of unannounced visits was made, pursuant to Mr Crawford's instructions of 1 February. Mr Simmons reported evidence of mixture of SBO and other waste in transit and commented that at the collection centres determining the constituents of the stained material was almost impossible and had to be taken on trust (see paragraph 4.287 above).

4.781 In summary, the regulations did not require separation during transit, there was no attempt by local authorities to enforce separation during transit and at collection centres, and the monitoring carried out by the VFS did not provide a reliable indication of whether or not commixture had occurred.

Renderers

4.782 We have already referred to the possibility that some renderers may not have been over-scrupulous about distinguishing SBO from other matter. What is clear beyond doubt is that, in the initial years of the SBO ban, MBM produced for sale to feed compounders must, in the course of production, have been contaminated with SBO in those plants which rendered both categories of material. We discuss this aspect before turning to local authority enforcement and monitoring by MAFF.

Cross-contamination at rendering plants

4.783 Mr Hutchins's report of 7 May 1991 (see paragraph 4.167 above) and Mr Simmons's report of 16 October 1991 demonstrated that, where common plant was used to render SBO and other matter, contamination was inevitable. Mr Simmons reported that the amount of infectious agent reaching susceptible animals through contamination of animal protein feed with SBO would be very small (see paragraph 4.183 above). This view was, however, expressed before Mr Simmons knew that one gram of infectious material would suffice to transmit BSE. With hindsight, we are of the view that the cross-contamination in the course of rendering that was occurring at this time was a significant cause of infection of the BABs.

4.784 The voluntary Code of Practice designed to prevent cross-contamination during transit, storage and rendering was not introduced until August 1992. The Code called for dismantling and cleaning of cooking equipment, or purging with material that would then be treated as SBO (see paragraphs 4.210-4.214 above).

4.785 Mr Fleetwood told us that at large premises such purging would consume at least one tonne of material. ¹⁹ We have some scepticism as to whether all renderers would have been prepared to sacrifice material on this scale under a voluntary scheme. Even where they were, Mr Fleetwood told us that such purging would not have been sufficient to prevent contamination sufficient to result in transmission. ²⁰ That was one of the reasons why a decision was taken to introduce a requirement for dedicated lines.

Enforcement and monitoring at rendering plants

4.786 We raised the question earlier of whether a renderer who knowingly sold to a feed compounder MBM which contained SBO was guilty of the offence of selling or supplying this material 'for feeding to animals' (see paragraph 4.648 above). This rather technical point of statutory construction would not necessarily have inhibited a Trading Standards Officer from prosecuting a renderer who could be shown to have knowingly supplied to a feed compounder MBM derived from SBO. What would have inhibited prosecution was the virtual impossibility of proving that the MBM in question contained protein derived from SBO.

4.787 The difficulties facing both County Councils and MAFF were demonstrated by one incident in respect of which we heard evidence from Mr Heafield, the County Trading Standards Officer for Lincolnshire. A rendering plant in Lincolnshire was consistently failing to keep SBO separate from non-SBO material in its reception area. On the initiative of Mr N M James, an SVS Veterinary Officer, a meeting, chaired by Mr James, was held with representatives of both the County Council and the District Council to decide what, if anything, could be done. The note of this meeting made the following points:

The Chairman advised the meeting that material in transit to the plant for rendering was covered largely by the Bovine Offal Prohibition Regulations 1989 and as such was the province of the Environmental Health Department of the District Council. Once it has arrived at the plant MAFF was responsible for licensing SBO material away from the premises, while Trading Standards had to ensure that the SBO products (or non-SBO ruminant material for ruminant feed) did not re-enter the animal or poultry food chain.

There was considerable discussion on this latter point. Mr Seymour pointed out that the witnessed mixing of SBO and non-SBO material in the reception area . . . would not itself constitute proof that such 'contaminated', non-SBO material would actually enter the food chain.

Further, it was agreed that, while Trading Standards would be the prosecuting authority in the event of SBO material entering a non-ruminant and poultry food chain, or ruminant material entering the ruminant food chain, it would be for MAFF inspectors to indicate that this was likely to be taking place prior to any investigation by Trading Standards. MAFF inspectors should therefore routinely seek to establish the destination of rendered products and species sampling may be necessary at feed company premises.

It was thought likely to be impossible (in the absence of a specific test) to demonstrate the presence of SBO material in a consignment of rendered, supposedly non-SBO material destined for non-ruminant feed.

There was no provision in the BSE Order to prosecute a company for failing to prevent the mixing of SBO material with non-SBO material in their reception facility. They could only be advised to follow the Code of Practice. ²¹

4.788 This was but one incident of a lengthy saga. The long and the short of it was, however, that both the County Council and MAFF were powerless to prevent cross-contamination of non-SBO material with SBO, whether accidental or otherwise, until the introduction of the Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995. The animal SBO ban could not, in practice, be enforced by the local authorities charged with its enforcement.