Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
3. Introduction of the animal SBO ban
Consideration of a statutory animal SBO ban
Ministers' concerns allayed
Mr Gummer advises the Prime Minister
Increasing pressure on MAFF to ban SBO in animal feed

3.110 In the months that followed UKASTA's introduction of the voluntary ban, MAFF came under increasing pressure to take legislative action on the feeding of bovine material to non-ruminants. In December 1989 the position on MBM and SBO could be summarised as follows:

1. no MBM from ruminants could be fed to ruminants (under the ruminant feed ban), whether or not it included SBO;
2. no SBO could be included in human food (under the human SBO ban); and
3. there was no restriction on feeding MBM including SBO to non-ruminant animals, but the PFMA had introduced a voluntary ban on the inclusion of SBO in pet food and UKASTA had introduced a voluntary ban on the inclusion of SBO in animal feed.

3.111 Industry and consumer groups lobbied MAFF to introduce further controls on the feeding of ruminant material to non-ruminant animals. Mr Meldrum identified the two distinct proposals:

There are two separate issues in respect of animal feed which should not be confused. The first issue was whether or not the SBO ban in relation to human food should be extended to feed for animals other than ruminants (ruminants already being protected by the ban on ruminant protein in ruminant feeds). The second much wider issue was whether or not the ban on ruminant protein in ruminant feed should be extended to feed for all other animals. ¹

Ministers' concerns allayed

3.112 On 5 January 1990 Mr Gordon Gresty, the County Trading Standards Officer for North Yorkshire County Council, wrote to Mr Maclean stating that the County Council's Public Protection Committee had passed a resolution that the Minister be asked to consider, amongst other things:

Why allow animal protein which may have come from BSE infected animals to be fed to other livestock, such as pigs, when it is suspected that the disease has already spread from sheep to cattle? ²

3.113 Such enquiries and the increased media attention to this issue was causing concern amongst MAFF Ministers. On 17 January 1990 Mr Gummer and Mr Andrews discussed the response to BSE. Mr Andrews said that there were only two areas where they could be open to criticism. The first was the argument for 100 per cent compensation and the second was the question of feeding animal protein to animals. Mr Gummer asked for a note on the practicality of banning the feeding of animal protein. ³

3.114 On the same day Mr Maclean's Private Secretary asked Mrs Attridge, who was now head of the Animal Health Group, to re-examine the practice of including animal protein, in particular SBOs, in animal feed. The requesting minute stated that:

[Mr Maclean] is concerned that, particularly in view of the intense media focus, pressure will continue to grow on BSE, and may eventually lead to a backlash in public opinion against the whole practice of recycling animal protein. He feels that this growing pressure may force retailers to impose conditions on their suppliers about the type of feed they give to their animals. This would in turn make the line we were currently taking increasingly difficult to defend.

. . . Mr Maclean will continue to take the line that the action that we have taken is already ultra-precautionary and that there is no justification for further action. I would, however, be grateful for advice on possible contingency plans that Mr Maclean could consider on the possible action that Ministers could take, if pressure continues to mount. What are the areas in which we could make limited concessions to avert moves to an outright rejection of all recycled animal protein? ⁴

3.115 Mr Curry agreed with Mr Maclean on these points 'because there is increasing unease at the practice of feeding specified offals to pigs and chickens'. Further, he did not feel 'that we can permanently defend actions which the public sense are wrong'. ⁵

3.116 On 23 January 1990, in response to Mr Maclean's request, Mrs Attridge circulated a minute in preparation for a meeting with Mr Gummer scheduled for the following day. Recipients included Mr Maclean, Mr Capstick, ⁶ Mr Meldrum, Mr Lowson and Mr Lawrence. In relation to the risk of infection from SBO, she said:

. . . there is however no indication that pigs and poultry (neither of which are herbivores) would be in any way affected. Pigs in particular have been exposed to meat and bone meal at higher inclusive rates from ruminants for a considerable time - no cases of encephalopathy in pigs has been reported.

Against this background there is clearly no scientific justification for any further restriction on meat and bone meal. There is indeed a danger that any such move would simply lead to questions on the safety of animals (pigs and poultry) which have already consumed the feedingstuffs on the grounds that if we now decided that they were 'unsafe' the animals which had consumed them must somehow have been put at risk. ⁷

3.117 Mrs Attridge concluded:

There is no obvious fall back from the present position that only the specified offals need to be removed from the human food chain and that it is safe to include these in meat and bone meal fed to pigs and poultry. Any ban on their use would lack scientific justification and would raise concerns about the safety of pigs and poultry already fed such material. It would not therefore reduce media pressure.

. . .

For the reasons set out above there are no satisfactory fall back positions. Ministers are recommended to make no changes at present. If the supermarkets require contracts with their suppliers to avoid meat and bone meal for pigs and poultry, that is a commercial decision by them. ... Government action could only be justified on human or animal health grounds. ⁸

3.118 On 24 January 1990 Mr Gummer and Mr Curry met Mr Andrews, Mr Meldrum, Mr Lowson, Mr Packer, Mrs Attridge, Mr Capstick and others to discuss BSE. The Minister expressed concern about the risk of transmission to pigs via MBM and thus to people. He asked how MAFF could be certain that 'the agent would not also infect pigs and poultry'. He also wondered, given the uncertainty about whether the disease was transmissible to pigs, whether:

. . . it would not be appropriate to ban the feeding of meat and bonemeal to pigs, perhaps on a temporary, precautionary basis until definitive results of the risk-assessment tests were available. ⁹

3.119 Mr Meldrum and Mrs Attridge opposed such a measure as being without scientific justification:

Such a move would give rise to pressures for a whole range of equally unjustified restrictions which would have a major damaging and permanent [e]ffect on the rendering industry . . . In effect, there would be a total ban on the use of animal protein for feeding to other animals. This was not justified, would be more onerous than the rules applying to other Member States and would create environmental problems in disposing of the waste materials. ¹⁰

3.120 Pet food was also discussed at the meeting:

Mr Meldrum pointed out that there was no problem in relation to dogs or cats because the pet food industry had been scrupulous in ensuring that the scrapie agent could not be transmitted through pet food. ¹¹

3.121 Mr Gummer discussed the matter further with Baroness Trumpington, Minister of State, and Mr Maclean after the meeting. In response to Baroness Trumpington's concerns about 'the likely political impact of public opinion turning towards the risk of dogs and cats becoming affected', Mr Gummer:

[A]greed and said that, despite the precautions which the pet food industry had taken, it would be appropriate for the Government to take measures (and be seen to be taking measures) to protect domestic pets. He asked [Mr Maclean] to pursue the options for doing this . . . ¹²

3.122 Mr Meldrum minuted Mrs Attridge on 29 January 1990 to voice his 'considerable alarm' about the views expressed by Mr Gummer and Baroness Trumpington. He advised 'considerable caution in pursuing the various options which Ministers wish to discuss further'. His minute was copied to Mr Andrews and Mr Capstick, among others, and stated:

I am equally concerned at the Ministers comments that we need to consider taking measures to protect domestic pets. I do not believe that is so bearing in mind that they are not susceptible to the encephalopathies under natural conditions and the industry has already put in place a significant raft of measures to reduce any residual risk to a minimum.

I remain concerned that we are still running before the wind and considering taking action without any scientific reason for doing so. It is therefore imperative that we consider the consequences of any further actions that we take to ensure that they are commensurate with any risk and equally important to ensure that any consequences are controllable. ¹³

3.123 On 26 January 1990 Dr Pickles distributed a draft briefing for a meeting between Mr Roger Freeman, the DH Parliamentary Secretary, and Mr Maclean. An annex headed, 'Additional Measures that have been Proposed (Mostly by the Media) in Response to the Challenge of BSE', included as its third proposal:

Ban all feeding of recycled animal protein to food animals

At present, meat and bone meal and other products made from animal remains can still be fed to non-ruminants including pigs and poultry. As well as containing scrapie-infected sheep, subclinically affected BSE-infected cattle will be being recycled this way. (Only clinically affected cattle are destroyed; the 'stained and sterilised' bovine offal now being excluded from human food can go for rendering). The rendering process may be adequate for salmonella, but not for BSE/scrapie. Southwood considered possible spread of BSE this way to other animal species [see para. 5.2 of the report] and recommended monitoring of the relevant species but no further extension of the feed ban. However, Southwood also questioned the wisdom of 'unnatural feeding practices' [paras 9.4 and 10.7]. Any extension of the animal protein feeding ban would need careful planning: it could leave abattoirs with no way of disposing of offal and increase costs very markedly in the poultry and pig industries. However, we would encourage MAFF to move in this direction. ¹⁴

Mr Gummer advises the Prime Minister

3.124 By late January 1990 it was decided to place the current issues about BSE before the Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher. On 26 January 1990 Mr Lowson prepared a draft note for Mr Gummer to give to the Prime Minister regarding BSE. The note stated that the 'current very high level of attention has produced pressure for a number of specific measures', including the extension of the RFB. ¹⁵ On 29 January 1990, in preparation for a meeting with Mr Gummer the following day, Mrs Thatcher was provided with a revised version of the note prepared by Mr Lowson. The reference to the 'current very high level of attention' had been replaced with the following:

In general, the public have responded well to our actions and there has been little sign of major criticism. However, there are four areas to which commentators point increasingly where it may be felt we are vulnerable. ¹⁶

3.125 One of these areas was the extension of the RFB. The note stated:

It is argued that if the scrapie agent can cause BSE in cattle, it could do the same in pigs and poultry. Professor Southwood has advised that there are no grounds for such an action. Indeed no encephalopathy has ever been diagnosed in poultry or pigs. Such a step would have serious implications for the livestock industry because it would close off the most important outlet for some 1.3 million tonnes of animal waste per year, at least reducing the competitiveness of the UK industry and perhaps jeopardising the slaughtering process and creating a direct public health risk through its disposal. This is however an area which will be closely studied, particularly in the light of work being undertaken to identify the treatments needed to destroy the BSE agent in animal protein production. ¹⁷

3.126 By the time Mr Gummer met the Prime Minister on 30 January 1990, he had accepted the position advocated by Mr Meldrum in relation to animal feed. In his statement to the Inquiry, Mr Gummer records his advice to the Prime Minister:

I told her that although scientists thought the possibility that BSE could be transferred from cattle to humans was remote, it was a risk that should never be ruled out and therefore research was continuing to see whether under certain circumstances a transfer across species could occur. I said that I did not think extending the ban on the use of ruminant protein in animal feed to pigs and poultry could be justified because to do so would be to take action without a single encephalopathy ever having been diagnosed in pigs or poultry. ¹⁸

3.127 Later that day, Mr Gummer and Mr Maclean held a meeting attended by, among others, Mrs Attridge, Mr Andrews, Mr Cruickshank, Mr Capstick and Mr Lowson. The minute of the meeting to Mrs Attridge recorded that:

[Mr Gummer] reported on his discussions on BSE with the Prime Minister. She had queried whether we should not ban the feeding of meat and bonemeal containing animal protein to pigs and poultry but he had persuaded her (drawing upon the excellent briefing which you and Mr Meldrum had provided) that this would not be appropriate. ¹⁹

Increasing pressure on MAFF to ban SBO in animal feed

3.128 In the face of mounting pressure, MAFF continued to assert that a ban on SBO in animal feed was neither necessary nor appropriate. On 9 January 1990, prior to Mr Gummer's meeting with the Prime Minister and as requested by Mr Meldrum and Mrs Attridge, ²⁰ MAFF published an issue of Food Facts stating:

There is no scientific justification to extend the ruminant feed ban to pigs and poultry. The Southwood Report acknowledged the importance of the feed ban for ruminants, but did not recommend that it be extended to pigs and poultry. . . .

Ruminant-based processed animal protein is a useful and nutritious food supplement, the production of which is subject to stringent Ministry controls to ensure that the material is safe for feeding to non-ruminants. ²¹

3.129 UKASTA representatives met Mr Meldrum and Mr Lawrence on 5 February 1990 to discuss salmonella and BSE. UKASTA's note of the meeting records that Mr Meldrum was 'still extremely annoyed at UKASTA's decision to recommend a voluntary ban on the use of meat and bonemeal containing the specified bovine offal now prohibited from use in human foodstuffs'. He was particularly concerned that stocks of SBO were building up in slaughterhouses, and the industry would have to bear the costs of disposal. Mr Meldrum 'maintained that there was no reason to restrict the use of meat and bonemeal containing the specified bovine offals in either pig or poultry rations'. ²²

3.130 On 6 February 1990 Mr Lawrence circulated a note on the sale of meat and bone meal to Mr Meldrum, Mrs Attridge, Mr Crawford, Mr Lowson and others. He said:

There is growing evidence that the renderers are running into trouble, primarily because of the ban on specified offals, but also the media attention which is being given to the whole practice of recycling protein materials to pigs and poultry. . . .

There is now apparently a stockpile of over 12,000 tonnes of unsold meat and bone meal in GB; it is growing. . . .

. . .

The Chairman of UKRA has indicated that the way things are going it is only a matter of weeks before they will be forced to carry out the threat of not taking specified offals . . . ²³

3.131 One month later, the Consumers Association wrote to Mr Maclean, calling for a comprehensive public review of all aspects of animal feed. It stated that the use of 'scrapie infected sheep proteins and proscribed cattle offals in feed for pigs, poultry and pets' should be suspended pending a thorough examination of the possible implications for both animals and humans. ²⁴

Mr Maclean's reply of 19 June 1990 repeated MAFF's assertion that there was no scientific justification for an extension of the ruminant feed ban. ²⁵

3.132 As a follow up to his letter of 15 November 1989 (see paragraph 3.103), Mr Meldrum again wrote to UKASTA on 11 April 1990. In this letter he referred to research in the USA which attempted to transfer kuru and scrapie to pigs and to various types of fowl without success. This research, Mr Meldrum concluded, supported his view that there was no evidence of any danger to pigs or poultry from scrapie or BSE. ²⁶

3.133 Minutes of a Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) meeting held on 26 April 1990 record that the Chairman, Mr Geoffrey John, had also raised the issue of removal of 'relevant materials' from the animal food chain with Mr Gummer that month. Mr Gummer had reiterated MAFF's view that there was no scientific evidence that pigs or poultry could contract BSE. ²⁷

3.134 On 10 May 1990 Mr Lowson sent a note entitled, 'Feeding of animal protein to animals', to Mr Andrews and various MAFF officials, including Mr Capstick, Mr Meldrum, Mr Lawrence and Mrs Attridge. It noted that 'concern has been expressed in some quarters that official controls should go further - particularly to extend the ruminant protein ban to feed used for poultry and pigs'. Mr Lowson argued that 'there is no scientific justification for this', and that the Southwood Working Party had not recommended the inclusion of pigs and poultry in the ban. He reiterated views already expressed within MAFF concerning the problems surrounding the disposal of animal material if it was not to be used in animal feed, and the costs involved. ²⁸