Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
6. Breeding
MAFF considers issuing advice to farmers
British Veterinary Association (BVA) seeks guidance from MAFF
Preparation of advice for Ministers
MAFF ministers consider the advice

British Veterinary Association (BVA) seeks guidance from MAFF

6.15 During a BVA Council meeting on 19 July 1989, Mr Francis Anthony, Chairman of the Farm Animals Committee, spoke about his earlier meeting on BSE with Mr Meldrum. On maternal transmission and breeding, a report of the Council meeting, which appeared in the Veterinary Record, noted that:

[Mr Anthony] was also very concerned about what advice should be given to practitioners on dealing with the offpsring of BSE cases. If scrapie was an accurate model of the new disease then it could be vertically transmitted and he was desperately concerned that nothing was being done to monitor the offspring. He had been assured that the records of cases were held on computer but he was not convinced that this would help the practitioner when asked what to do with an affected animal's progeny. ¹

6.16 On 24 August 1989 Mr Meldrum minuted Mr David Kyle, Assistant Chief Veterinary Officer with responsibility for notifiable diseases, to draw his attention to the BVA Council meeting. Mr Meldrum suggested that MAFF might consider 'advising owners and their veterinary surgeons concerning the fate of offspring of confirmed cases of BSE'. He asked that Mr Kyle keep his suggestion in mind and 'discuss with me when we can see the way forward'. ² In a statement to the Inquiry, Mr Meldrum explained that:

This was an issue that had been under informal discussion within the AHVG for some time because we knew that maternal transmission occurred in scrapie and the possibility existed that it could also occur with BSE. ³

6.17 Mr Kyle returned to the issue on 30 January 1990 by way of a written comment on Mr Meldrum's original minute, asking whether Mr Meldrum wished to 're-open this matter now'. ⁴ Five days earlier, the BVA had issued a press release publicising their advice on various BSE issues. On breeding, it advised:

[W]hile there is at present no evidence of vertical transmission (research is continuing) it would be prudent for farmers not to breed from calves from confirmed BSE parents and to be punctilious in keeping movement records. ⁵

6.18 Mr Meldrum, by a manuscript note dated 2 February 1990, informed Mr Kyle that he had asked Mr Kevin Taylor, Veterinary Head of Notifiable Disease Section, to provide a paper on 'maternal transmission and the various options'. Mr Meldrum suggested to Mr Kyle that 'we need to have a plan that we can implement if and when more results become available'. ⁶

6.19 On 6 February 1990 Mr John Gummer, Minister of Agriculture, met Mr Derek Andrews, ⁷ Mr Meldrum, Mrs Elizabeth Attridge, ⁸ Mr Alastair Cruickshank, ⁹ Mr Charles Capstick ¹⁰ and other MAFF officials to discuss BSE. Mr Meldrum advised that there was a 'three to one chance in favour' of maternal transmission being proved. This prompted Mr Gummer to suggest that MAFF should not wait for proof, and 'should identify what measures we would wish to take once proof was established, and adopt them now'. Mr Meldrum said that there were a number of policy options to be explored. Mr Gummer therefore asked for a paper to be prepared setting out the options, with accompanying recommendations. ¹¹

Preparation of advice for Ministers

6.20 On 8 February 1990 Mr Meldrum provided Mr Taylor with 'some thoughts' for inclusion in the paper being prepared. He noted that if MAFF was to alter its policy on the offspring of BSE-affected cattle, a clear objective was needed:

If the option of slaughter is for purposes of consumer protection or confidence it is not tenable since the offal ban is designed for this purpose and to remove any residual human health hazard. Thus any offspring that may be infected are no more nor less a risk than those that may have been exposed through feeding of meat and bone meal. Indeed any risk must be the same. To remove the offspring in this way would be an over-reaction to the present scientific evidence related to any remote risk to man.

If the objective is for animal health purposes it is illogical to remove healthy offspring when it is not known as to whether they have been exposed and whether they could transmit the agent to their offspring. Such animals may prove to be lower risk than animals fed contaminated meat and bone meal as calves. It follows that to remove offspring of affected animals whilst we are unable to identify those cattle infected through meat and bone meal is illogical and will not significantly alter the cost of the epidemic. Such action might stand up to scrutiny if there was some evidence of maternal transmission and these animals exposed could be identified by a diagnostic test in the living animal. ¹²

6.21 Mr Meldrum set out policy options that he thought MAFF might consider:

1. keep the present policy, which was to record the unique ear number of the progeny: Mr Meldrum noted that this was attracting criticism from the industry and practising veterinary surgeons, who believed that more should be done;
2. advise owners not to breed from progeny: Mr Meldrum said this was the option supported by the BVA, ¹³ and noted it was 'a wise course to follow in case maternal transmission does take place'. In addition, MAFF could use existing powers to require that such progeny were retained on the farm of origin and were not sold except for slaughter or fattening;
3. slaughter the most recent calf born of an affected dam: Mr Meldrum noted that this would be a 'crude instrument of control', given that healthy animals would be slaughtered; and
4. slaughter all progeny of affected cows: Mr Meldrum explained scientists had suggested that if progeny of affected cows were to be slaughtered, then all progeny should be slaughtered because there was no evidence that maternal transmission was restricted to the most recent calf born. ¹⁴

6.22 Mr Meldrum noted that 'there are clear presentational difficulties in destroying some thousands of healthy cattle when we have no evidence that maternal transmission can occur and where there is no evidence that the cattle themselves have actually been exposed'. He concluded that:

I am clearly of the opinion that we should not require slaughter of progeny of cattle affected with BSE but it would be wise to consider whether option 2 should be pursued to limit the animal health damage that could occur in a herd should maternal transmission occur. ¹⁵

6.23 On 12 February 1990 Mr Lebrecht, Private Secretary to Mr Gummer, asked Mr Robert Lowson, Head of Animal Health Division, to prepare the paper requested by Mr Gummer. He was asked to collaborate with Mr Meldrum and present it by 16 February 1990. ¹⁶

6.24 On 19 February 1990 Mr Lowson provided Mrs Attridge with a draft note for Mr Gummer on maternal transmission. He had agreed with Mr Meldrum that it would take the form of a short note covering a more detailed paper prepared by the State Veterinary Service (the SVS paper), which was attached. ¹⁷

6.25 Mr Lowson's draft submission noted that if maternal transmission occurred, it would not present any public health issues, and would not prejudice the elimination of BSE from the national herd. It discussed various policy options in light of this, and asked Ministers:

to endorse the view that the slaughter or segregation of the offspring of cattle infected with BSE would not be appropriate;

to indicate whether they want to pursue the question of restrictions on the use of such offspring for breeding, and if so whether [SEAC] should be consulted first . . . ¹⁸

6.26 Dr Hilary Pickles, Principal Medical Officer DH, provided Mr Lawrence with her comments on Mr Lowson's draft submission on 20 February 1990. She qualified her remarks by noting that they represented 'a personal viewpoint since I have not had time to consult on a collective DH view'. In addition to pointing out a lack of cost-benefit analysis, Dr Pickles commented on obtaining expert advice:

It is in my view essential to consult outside experts ie [SEAC]. Firstly because there may be alternative interpretations of the scientific data, and the mechanism of transmission of scrapie from ewe to lamb is a case in point; secondly because there may be alternative ways of controlling infection which should perhaps be looked at, even if just to dismiss (eg caesarean section, at least for valuable calves or those for export, or restocking from overseas); and thirdly because it is useful for Ministers to be able to confirm that new actions are endorsed by outside expert opinion. ¹⁹

Mr Lowson's final submission to Mr Gummer

6.27 Mr Lowson's final submission was forwarded to Mr Gummer on 22 February 1990. Both it and the State Veterinary Service (SVS) paper attached had been amended in line with comments received from Dr Pickles and various MAFF officials. ²⁰

6.28 The SVS paper set out possible control measures, listed in order of increasing severity:

1. improved identification of calves - this was recommended, irrespective of any other measures adopted (see r on cattle tracking);
2. advise owners that progeny of BSE cases should not be retained for breeding;
3. control movement of progeny by marking or licensing to prevent breeding;
4. segregate the offspring of BSE cattle - it was noted that this would be impracticable, and would attract suspicion and undermine confidence in existing control measures;
5. slaughter the female progeny of BSE-affected cows; and
6. slaughter all progeny of BSE-affected cows, and all their progeny - it was noted that this step could not be justified, so would not be considered further. ²¹

6.29 The SVS paper accepted that the main source of infection - contaminated feed - had been eliminated, meaning maternal transmission was the only possible means of future transmission. ²² However, it stated that 'maternal transmission alone is incapable of maintaining the epidemic'. ²³ It did not therefore recommend slaughter or segregation of progeny. However it did recommend that owners be formally advised that the progeny of BSE-affected cases should not be used for breeding. If Ministers felt there was a need to go further, then it suggested controls on the movement of progeny by marking or licensing could also be implemented. ²⁴

6.30 Mr Lowson's submission briefly summarised the main points in the SVS paper. He said:

The SVS paper concludes that it could make sense, in advance of the outcome of the transmission experiment, to restrict the use of the offspring of cows affected with BSE so that they may not be used for breeding. This could be done by issuing advice to farmers not to breed from such animals (as is advocated by the BVA, WFU [Women's Farming Union], and others) or, if it is felt necessary to go further, by introducing a compulsory licensing and marking system to ensure that BSE progeny are not used for breeding . . .

Either approach would to well beyond the advice of the Southwood Committee, which was that the offspring of a sample of BSE cattle should be closely monitored. In the absence of any new risk to public health even if maternal transmission were shown to occur, there is no reason for the Government to abandon its stance of proceeding on the basis of the best scientific advice. Ministers are therefore recommended as a first step to seek the advice of the newly-constituted [SEAC] on what action would be appropriate. ²⁵

6.31 Mr Lowson also noted that the introduction of further controls would 'risk that the public will perceive such controls as tantamount to an admission that there is a risk to public health from consumption of calves of infected animals'. ²⁶ This point reflected concerns raised by Mr John Cowan, Head of Beef Division, in his comments on Mr Lowson's draft submission:

However carefully presentation of such actions is handled here, they are interpreted by the media (and subsequently by the public) as proof that there is something very nasty in the woodshed which we are doing our best to hide . . .

Though I am quite certain that the measures proposed would be presented in ways which emphasised that they had absolutely nothing to do with public health but rather with disease control, I have no doubt that they would provide a focus for public comment by those self-styled experts who seem to think they have a vested interest in arguing that most food is unsafe and red meat is particularly unsafe. ²⁷

6.32 Mr Lowson recommended for Ministers:

1. to endorse the view that the slaughter or segregation of the offspring of cattle in which BSE is confirmed would not be appropriate;
2. to seek advice from [SEAC] on the question of restrictions on the use of such offspring for breeding;
3. note the arguments made on the possible impact of new measures . . . ²⁸

MAFF ministers consider the advice

6.33 After receiving the submission, Mr Gummer asked Mr David Maclean, Parliamentary Secretary, for his comments. Mr Maclean provided these on 2 March 1990. He believed that Mr Lowson's submission started from the 'wrong premise', and 'slightly misses the point':

The paper asks what steps we should take in response to the possibility that [maternal transmission] might occur, whereas I believe we need to know what steps we would want to have taken if we discovered in two years time that maternal transmission had occurred. There is an important difference. ²⁹

6.34 Mr Maclean pointed out that although in theory there was no need to trace and cull the offspring of affected cows should maternal transmission occur, since existing controls would catch the animals when the disease developed, there would still be a public outcry over calves under 6 months old. ³⁰ He continued:

But more important perhaps would be the concern that we had allowed offspring from BSE animals to wander unrecorded through the farming and food chain and permitted breeding from them. We know that even if [maternal transmission] occurs the epidemic would still die out albeit more slowly . . . but that will not be the public perception or perhaps the international perception from those who buy our pedigree animals. ³¹

6.35 He agreed that at the present time the culling of all offspring of BSE-affected cows would be wrong, 'because of the panic and doubts it would create'. However, if a culling policy became necessary in the future owing to the occurrence of maternal transmission, MAFF needed to be able to identify such animals. Mr Maclean continued:

Therefore the first step to take now is to identify BSE offspring. Second and of vital importance I agree [with] the advice that we should have a compulsory policy against using BSE animals for breeding purposes. Indeed this would be essential not just for its own sake and in order to eradicate the disease, but it is also justification for the identification part of the scheme. ³²

6.36 Mr Gummer and the Parliamentary Secretaries, Mr Maclean and Mr David Curry, met MAFF officials on 5 March 1990 to consider measures that might be taken in anticipation of maternal transmission being proved. Most of the discussion focused on the fact that if maternal transmission was proved, the exclusion of calves from the human Specified Bovine Offal (SBO) ban, introduced in November 1989 (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96), would be questioned. The note of the meeting records that at its conclusion, Mr Gummer said that the 'main issue remained what we would say publicly if maternal transmission were to be demonstrated'. Mr Gummer agreed that policy could not be based on zero risk, 'but the key question was how far towards that we should go'. He suggested that: 'All concerned should reflect on the discussion in preparation for a further meeting to be arranged shortly'. Further, Mr Curry was asked to chair another meeting to discuss other questions raised in the briefing papers. ³³

6.37 At this time, MAFF was in the process of updating an Advisory Note to farmers about BSE. In a statement to the Inquiry, Mr Meldrum said that he received a draft copy of the note the day after the meeting, upon which he provided comments, 'but said that I was convinced that Ministers would want further advice to be contained in the leaflet on maternal transmission which could not be finalised until discussions on the issue had been concluded'. ³⁴

6.38 At Mr Meldrum's request, Mr Taylor discussed the draft note with Mr Anthony of the BVA. Mr Taylor informed Mr Meldrum on 7 March 1990 that the 'BVA would like the note to include advice that the off-spring of suspect animals should not be used for breeding'. Mr Taylor noted that acceptance of this point would depend on the policy discussions in progress. ³⁵

6.39 On 9 March 1990 Mr Meldrum attended a seminar organised by the Women's Farming Union (WFU). It was also attended by Dr Tony Andrews, Senior Lecturer in Veterinary Medicine at the Royal Veterinary College, and representatives of the National Farmers' Union (NFU), the National Cattle Breeders Association (NCBA) and the Farmers Union of Wales (FUW). Maternal transmission and breeding from progeny of BSE-affected cows was discussed. Mr Meldrum informed the seminar that there was no need to do anything from a public health perspective. However, he said that animal health posed different issues, and he raised the question of whether the industry was prepared to countenance the slaughter of potentially healthy animals. Mrs Rosemary Berry of the WFU said that the WFU was only suggesting a non-breeding policy from offspring of BSE-affected cows, and that such offspring should not leave the farm on which they are born. Dr Andrews said that tracing of BSE offspring would be very difficult and that it would be better to make sure that such animals were not bred from. ³⁶

6.40 Following further discussion, Mrs Barbara Smith of the WFU told the seminar that the WFU would inform Mr Gummer that it would like to see a ban on breeding from the offspring of BSE-affected animals come into operation. Mr Peter Rudman of the NFU said that the NFU would disassociate itself for the meantime, while Mr Rowland Kershaw-Dalby of the NCBA said his association might join in support in the future. ³⁷

6.41 During oral evidence, Mrs Smith explained why she thought it was wrong to breed from the offspring of BSE-affected animals:

There was not a shortage of cattle, so there was not any desperate need to breed from those animals. I felt that from the very start but as time went on I became even more convinced of it because from our experience, and we had one batch of 30 heifers which were all fed the same feed at the same time and only two of those animals succumbed to BSE which led to my thinking that maybe there was a genetic disposition factor coming into play which just reinforced my viewpoint that it was not necessary to breed from heifers of BSE cows, so why do it? ³⁸

6.42 Mrs Berry added in oral evidence that in the absence of scientific evidence on the potential of maternal transmission, 'the sensible thing was not to breed from these animals so that if scientific evidence subsequently proved that there was a risk, we prevented the disease becoming endemic'. ³⁹

6.43 On 14 March 1990 Mr Curry chaired a further meeting as requested by Mr Gummer, attended by Mr Maclean and MAFF officials. ⁴⁰ The note of the meeting records that Mr Curry summed up the discussion on breeding from calves produced by BSE animals:

It was agreed that there would be considerable benefits obtainable through voluntary action. However, whether controls were voluntary or statutory, we could not expect complete coverage and some animals would slip through the net. If statutory action was taken, this would send signals which would re-inforce public concerns about the disease. There would also be a significant marketing effect on beef. At the same time, it was recognised from experience of management of public relations and the political climate, that there would be demands for statutory controls which would be difficult to resist. At this stage, it was for consideration whether we should pre-empt what would, inevitably, be seen as weakness later, even though such a decision would not necessarily have a scientific basis. ⁴¹

6.44 It was agreed that the advice of SEAC should be sought, 'in the knowledge that [SEAC] would judge the matter on objective scientific criteria, which might question the value of statutory controls'. It was also recognised that there would be other criteria to take into account, 'and that it was likely that some form of action would be taken on breeding, irrespective of [SEAC's] recommendations'. ⁴²

6.45 Mr Curry requested that the draft Advisory Note to farmers should be submitted to Ministers for approval as soon as possible, and that it include a paragraph advising that there should be no breeding from the offspring of BSE-affected cows, 'in anticipation of action in this area'. ⁴³

6.46 Mr Lowson prepared the requested passage on breeding for inclusion in the Advisory Note, accompanied by a draft press release highlighting the advice. He submitted them to Mr Andrews on 19 March 1990. ⁴⁴ The passage read:

Experiments are being carried out to determine whether BSE can be spread at calving. Results may not be available for several years. Spread at calving would make the eradication of BSE more difficult. Therefore, even though transmission at this time is not known to occur, Ministry advice is that calves born to cows which are or which become confirmed cases of BSE should not be used for breeding. ⁴⁵

6.47 Mr Gummer met senior MAFF officials ⁴⁶ the next day to discuss the outcome of the meeting on 14 March 1990. It was confirmed that SEAC's advice would be sought on breeding from the offspring of BSE-affected cows. It was further agreed that segregation of BSE offspring would be impractical, and that a slaughter policy should not be pursued in the absence of evidence that it was desirable. ⁴⁷