Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
6. Breeding
MAFF considers issuing advice to farmers
DH's consideration of the advice
SEAC considers the breeding issue
MAFF issues the Advisory Note to farmers, June 1990

DH's consideration of the advice

6.48 On 2 April 1990 Dr Pickles expressed concern to Sir Donald Acheson, the Chief Medical Officer, that:

We had agreed with MAFF that any new initiatives would be subject to outside expert advice from [SEAC].

However, it now seems MAFF are preparing to offer new advice to farmers without that expert advice. Within the draft advisory note attached, it is recommended that 'even though transmission 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'. This advice is new.

This arose from the MAFF Ministers' view that should there be action that we might want to take were BSE shown to be passed on from cow to calf, we should take that action now. Advice from within MAFF was to have breeding records of all cows/calves and advise against or prohibit breeding from any cows who are themselves offspring of cows who later develop BSE. Although pressed to refer the whole matter to [SEAC], it seems MAFF propose to refer only the question of whether the offspring of cases should be slaughtered. ¹

6.49 Dr Pickles set out her reservations with MAFF's proposed action:

1. There is no substantial new and relevant scientific evidence since Southwood reported a year ago. So taking action not recommended by that group might call into question the rest of the Southwood advice, including the remoteness of risk to humans.
2. The public/press will be worried by the giving of this advice and the net response could well be that these identified offspring of BSE cases become not acceptable as beef cattle for export either. There will be pressure to turn informal advice into statutory controls. Farmers will then lose money unless they ignore the advice or evade new controls, setting off more media worries. Yet the experts will have to admit it is impossible to identify all calves born to cows infected with BSE, since many of these will have been killed before showing symptoms. Hence more public worries about the ineffectiveness of the new 'controls'.
3. There is no substantial benefit and the whole exercise is unlikely to warrant the cost and hassle. Even if BSE is transmitted from cow to calf, the epidemic will almost certainly die out in a few years.
4. Why have an expert group if their advice is not asked for on a matter as major as this? Justification for any new action should be that advice was sought and then followed. There is only a month to wait before the first meeting of the experts. ²

6.50 Annexed to Dr Pickles's minute was a document entitled 'Maternal Transmission', which set out DH's understanding of the reasoning behind MAFF's proposals. Under the heading 'Comments from DH on the proposals include', it was said that:

There may be pressure from the farming lobby for advice on breeding. So far, this issue has not been taken up more widely. Bringing attention to it with new measures has to be fully justified and that justification has yet to be produced. This looks like MAFF digging another big hole for themselves to fall in. ³

6.51 Sir Donald agreed that:

. . . it would be foolish of MAFF to make such a decision of this sort which must be based on a view of risk of transmission from cows to calves without seeking advice. If they do not they will undermine [SEAC] from the start. ⁴

6.52 On 4 April 1990 Mr Lowson informed Mr Lebrecht that he had sent a copy of the draft Advisory Note to DH on 19 March 1990, and that DH had now told MAFF that they objected to the reference to breeding from offspring of affected cattle. DH's concerns were:

- to offer advice to farmers would go beyond what the Southwood Committee advised, which would call into question the rest of Southwood's recommendations;

- to put out advice so soon before asking [SEAC] to advise on the topic would run counter to the objective of proceeding on the basis of scientific advice only; and

- to put any kind of question mark against a new category of animal would heighten public concern about the safety of beef. ⁵

6.53 Mr Lowson noted that these arguments 'were ventilated at Mr Curry's meeting, and it is the CVO's strong recommendation that advice about breeding should be offered'. He also said that the BVA's view was consistent with Mr Meldrum's, 'and we know that some at least of the [SEAC] members already support it'. However, Mr Lowson suggested that DH's concern 'certainly cannot be brushed aside'. ⁶ This left three possible courses of action:

One possibility would simply be to drop the reference to breeding from the leaflet, and to deal with any enquiries by saying that we were seeking further scientific advice on the topic, even though Southwood did not make any recommendations. Another would be to recommend that farmers should seek advice from their veterinary surgeons about breeding from the offspring of BSE cattle. The third possibility, which corresponds with the approach which Ministers have so far adopted, would be for them to seek to impress upon DOH colleagues the importance that they attach to this point . . . ⁷

6.54 Mr Curry and Mr Maclean both responded that they agreed with Mr Meldrum, and that the reference to breeding should be retained in the Advisory Note. However, there was also concern that MAFF should not be seen to be pre-empting the deliberations of SEAC. ⁸

6.55 Also on 4 April 1990, Mr Gummer met Mrs Browning, Mrs Smith and Mrs Berry of the WFU. They suggested to him that breeding from the offspring of BSE-affected animals should be banned. Mr Gummer responded that it had not been established whether maternal transmission occurred and that epidemiological evidence indicated BSE would decline even if it did occur. He emphasised that he was concerned that all necessary control measures should be taken, and would look at the possibility of introducing controls on breeding if SEAC recommended that it was appropriate. ⁹ By 3 May 1990 the WFU had changed its policy on BSE offspring, and publicly advocated that 'to prevent vertical transmission MAFF should introduce a slaughter policy for the progeny of BSE cattle'. ¹⁰

6.56 Dr Jeremy Metters, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, minuted Sir Donald Acheson on 10 April about MAFF's proposal to issue advice on breeding. He said that Dr David Tyrrell's ¹¹ view was that the advice should be delayed until SEAC had considered the issue. Dr Metters had spoken with Mr Meldrum, and pointed out that issuing the advice before SEAC had considered the issue would undermine their credibility. Mr Meldrum had admitted that MAFF would be reluctant to issue the advice if DH had doubts, and following Dr Metters's affirmation that they did, conceded that he could agree to wait, though other officials might not. Dr Metters said that Mr Meldrum had indicated that if Sir Donald conveyed DH's views to Mr Andrews, then this would be enough to delay the issue of advice. ¹²

6.57 Mr Maclean wrote to Mr Roger Freeman, DH Parliamentary Secretary, on the same day to explain MAFF's position. He noted that farmers' organisations and other representative groups had been pressing MAFF for official advice on breeding from offspring of BSE-affected cattle, and that he believed such advice should be offered. Mr Maclean suggested that 'if we were not do so, we would be accused of irresponsibility'. He continued:

The strong recommendation that I have received from the State Veterinary Service is that farmers should be advised not to use the female offspring suffering from BSE for breeding. In doing so it would be important to make it clear that this was a common-sense precaution to reduce the risk of the introduction of BSE to farms which had not already suffered it, with no implications for human health and on the basis of no scientific evidence of maternal transmission. We would, as already discussed between officials, want to seek the advice of [SEAC] on the topic, but in the meantime I do not see how we could issue advice to farmers which did not contain any information on the one point on which they most want to be advised. ¹³

6.58 After reading the letter Dr Pickles minuted Dr Metters on 11 April 1990 and reiterated DH's arguments against the issue of advice. She suggested:

It seems that we and MAFF may have different views on the facts. The first sentence of the second paragraph [of] Mr Maclean's letter suggests animals suffering from BSE might be used for breeding - we understood all ill animals were slaughtered. His next sentence mentions introduction of BSE to farms as if herds that have not had clinical cases are free of infection - it was our understanding that all cattle in this country must be regarded as suspect for subclinical infection. Whilst we still believe BSE has no direct implications for human health, and any new measures will not change this, we are also concerned about public perceptions of risk and the anxiety caused by any ill-judged new moves. These are all good reasons for using the mechanisms we have set up to get the advice of independent experts. ¹⁴

6.59 Dr Pickles attached a draft letter for Mr Freeman to send to Mr Maclean. It pointed out that Mr Maclean had previously agreed that 'important new measures were to be approved by both departments and also that these would be based on advice from [SEAC]'. In suggesting that the issue of the advice should be delayed until after SEAC had considered the matter, it continued:

I think it is important we stick to these agreements, particularly as my own officials appear to have a rather different interpretation of the facts available - a clear indication that we need independent expert advice. As you say, there is no relevant new scientific evidence on maternal transmission, so we must be careful in the presentation of new advice that goes beyond what was recommended by the Southwood group in case this calls into question the rest of their advice. ¹⁵

6.60 The final version of Mr Freeman's letter, sent on 17 April 1990, said:

I think it is important we stick to these agreements, particularly as [SEAC] is to meet on 1 May. To issue this advice just before they meet will only undermine their credibility. As you say, there is no relevant new scientific evidence on maternal transmission, so we must also be careful to ensure that any new advice [that] goes beyond that recommended by the Southwood group is backed by independent experts.

I believe the right approach is for you to delay the issue of the advice to farmers, or to issue it with no comment about breeding, and present the problem to [SEAC]. Depending then on their views, we can reconsider what advice, should be offered. ¹⁶

6.61 Following receipt of Mr Freeman's letter, the issue of the Advisory Note was delayed until SEAC had considered the issue, and Mr Gummer asked that the draft Advisory Note be forwarded to SEAC for its consideration. ¹⁷

6.62 It appears Mr Gummer had already resigned himself to this approach. On 11 April 1990 the Press Office forwarded the draft text of the advisory leaflet to Mr Gummer. A manuscript note on the covering minute records:

The Minister discussed this with the Secretary this morning. He has decided that the leaflet should be submitted to [SEAC] for comments before it is used. ¹⁸

6.63 On breeding, the draft advisory leaflet read:

Experiments are being carried out to determine whether BSE can be transmitted from dam to calf. Results may not be available for several years, but the existence of such transmission would mean that the eradication of BSE would take longer and be more difficult. Therefore, even though transmission 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. ¹⁹

6.64 On 24 April 1990, in relation to a suspected BSE case born after the ruminant feed ban, Mr Raymond Bradley Head of Pathology at MAFF's Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVO) suggested to Mr Meldrum that at worst it indicated the possibility of maternal transmission existed. He continued:

However, there have been no reported cases yet in the offspring trial even though some animals are over two years old and some had exposure or possible exposure to MBM before July 1988. There is still time of course for these to develop BSE but the . . . case, even if confirmed, may be the unusual example rather than the norm. ²⁰

SEAC considers the breeding issue

6.65 SEAC considered the breeding issue during its first meeting on 1 May 1990. ²¹ The minutes record that SEAC had several reservations about MAFF's proposal to issue advice:

The incidence of subclinical infection invalidated any action proposed. Any advice against breeding from BSE offspring might imply breeding from other cows was acceptable, and yet this was not necessarily the case since these animals could have silent infection. The evidence with natural scrapie suggested there was no association with birth order, so even young cows might be capable of passing infection on to offspring. With the proposed measures, there would be incentives to cheat, perhaps even leading to an increase in infection as farmers offload suspect animals, with difficulties in buying in replacement cows at appropriate ages. There could be disposal of certain useful genes if BSE-offspring were not used for breeding. It was possible infectious but resistant genotypes would be selected, leading to further problems. The effect on the public and the meat trade was thought important: if all these offspring could be properly identified then there would be difficulty in finding buyers for them, but it not properly identified there would be presentational difficulties and little chance such measures would have any effect. In view of the expected elimination of the disease eventually in any case (barring horizontal transmission), at best new measures might be able to accelerate this slightly. At worst, new measures could conceivably make the epidemic worse, although minimal effect was most likely. Introduction of new measures now would lead to suspicion of something unpleasant being concealed. ²²

6.66 The day after SEAC's meeting, Dr Pickles informed Dr Metters that the Committee 'were not persuaded on MAFF's proposed line . . . vindicating our stance that this action should await independent expert advice'. ²³ Dr Metters replied on 4 May 1990 and said that:

In view of [SEAC's] reservations about MAFF's proposed ban on the breeding of offspring of cows who later developed BSE, I am very glad we took action to delay MAFF's announcement until [SEAC] had met. The scientific arguments they identified against the proposed ban are persuasive and show how ineffective it could be in identifying all offspring of cows incubating BSE. ²⁴

6.67 On 9 May 1990 Mr Lowson sent a letter to Dr Pickles to help finalise the minutes of SEAC's first meeting, and said 'I will put fresh advice to our Ministers about advice regarding the use for breeding of the offspring of BSE cattle'. ²⁵

6.68 Mr Meldrum forwarded his comments on SEAC's first meeting to Mr Lowson on 14 May 1990. On the breeding issue he said:

The Committee have been over influenced by the possibility that sub-clinical infection not only may occur but that such animals, as in scrapie, could transmit maternally. That is also pure conjecture, particularly as there are already indications that the agent of BSE is a single agent and that there may not be a genetic resistance to the agent in cattle. I would argue, strongly, that it is far better to offer advice for a percentage of the population where disease has been confirmed, even though this would not cover those where sub-clinical infection may exist, than to offer no advice at all and to extend the duration of the epidemic . . .

All in all the arguments deployed are not convincing to me . . . and, if this is the view of the Committee, then it will not be supported by me . . .

You will, I am sure, understand my position and that I must in such situations retain the right to offer my own advice to Ministers. All of this reinforces my earlier view that in such delicate situations it is imperative that I am in a position to present my case to [SEAC]. You will appreciate that there was no one present at that meeting from the SVS in support of the paper that you had circulated beforehand. ²⁶

6.69 The next day Mrs Attridge sent a draft submission prepared by Mr Lowson, in the light of SEAC's advice, to Mr Gummer. Mrs Attridge pointed out that SEAC did not consider it appropriate for MAFF to issue advice, and noted that 'Mr Meldrum is aware of the Committee's advice but has not had the opportunity to comment on it'. ²⁷ Mr Lowson's submission said that:

[SEAC's] arguments are convincing and the Minister is therefore recommended to agree to the release of the advisory leaflet . . . without the passage on the use of the offspring of BSE cattle for breeding. If challenged on this point, we can point to the strong scientific advice that we have received. ²⁸

6.70 Also on 15 May 1990, Mr Gummer met Mr Maclean and senior MAFF officials to discuss how to react to new NFU proposals on BSE. On breeding from calves of BSE-affected cattle, the minutes of the meeting record that:

. . . [Mr Gummer] said the only tenable line was for him to follow the advice of his expert committee. This was so even though Mr Meldrum was not fully convinced by all of the views expressed by the Tyrrell Committee. ²⁹

6.71 Mr Gummer met NFU representatives later that day to discuss BSE issues, including the proposed advice on breeding. The note of the meeting records that:

The Minister said that, given he was basing his position firmly on reliance on scientific advice, he could not possibly with credibility take a decision which contradicted that advice and might lead to a worsening of the situation. ³⁰

6.72 Although the NFU representatives expressed some doubt about the advice given by SEAC, they 'eventually accepted that the Minister could not stand against that advice, given its source'. ³¹

6.73 Mr Maclean met Mr Andrews, Mr Capstick, Mrs Attridge, Mr Meldrum and Mr Simon Dugdale, the Chief Information Officer, on 16 May 1990. It was noted that a statement was being prepared on SEAC's advice on breeding from the offspring of BSE-affected cows, which would be put to Dr Tyrrell for endorsement within the next day or two. Mr Maclean thought the advice 'should come out in full'. Although Mr Meldrum said the obvious advice for veterinarians to give to farmers was that they should not use offspring of affected cows for breeding, he acknowledged that 'in the context of general advice to farmers, [SEAC] was right to draw attention to the problems [it] had identified'. ³²

6.74 SEAC discussed breeding again at its second meeting on 17 May 1990, during which a draft statement of advice was discussed. ³³ Their agreed advice, provided to DH and MAFF Ministers that day, stated:

. . . there is no scientific evidence currently available to support official advice against the use for breeding of the offspring of cows suffering from BSE, even if infection can pass down from cow to calf, a possibility that cannot be excluded at present. Decisions about breeding should be left to individual farmers and their veterinary advisers.

Because the likely origin of the epidemic has been eliminated, the outbreak in cattle will be self-limiting unless infection can be spread freely between cattle - in which case restricting breeding would be pointless . . . Because of the possibility that sub-clinically infected animals might infect their offspring, not all potentially infected calves might be identified, which would reduce any benefit. Other possible consequences might even be unhelpful, since it could lead to the increased dispersal of infected animals to other herds, and to the loss of valuable genetic material. ³⁴

6.75 They concluded the advice by noting that their viewpoint may need revising 'in light of new scientific information'. ³⁵

6.76 The same day Mr Gummer made a statement in the House of Commons during oral answers to Parliamentary Questions, which was also issued as a press release. ³⁶ During his statement on breeding he said:

Some have suggested that there should be a ban on breeding from the offspring of BSE-infected cattle. The Southwood Committee did not recommend this. But I was concerned to ensure that all up-to-date information was taken into account so I referred the question back to [SEAC]. It confirms fully what Southwood said. ³⁷

6.77 During SEAC's meeting on 17 May 1990, a draft paper, giving fuller explanation of their advice to Ministers on breeding, was circulated. ³⁸ Dr Tyrrell subsequently redrafted the paper, and Mr Meldrum provided comments on the revised draft entitled 'The Scientific Background to the Control of BSE in Cattle' to Dr Pickles on 31 May 1990. He said that he had 'severe reservations about this paper since it does contain a number of inaccuracies and misconceptions'. He thought the paper needed further redrafting, which he believed a member of SEAC was doing in any event. ³⁹

6.78 SEAC discussed the draft paper at its third and fourth meetings on 13 June and 2 July respectively, ⁴⁰ and the final paper, 'Control of BSE in Cattle', was agreed and published on 12 July 1990. The paper set out the basis for SEAC's advice to Government on breeding from offspring:

10. Slaughtering, or avoiding breeding from, the female offspring of affected cows may harm the productivity of the herd and would remove animals which could be valuable for improving the stock - eg because of their potential milk yield or quality. There could also be a tendency for animals which were infected, but had not yet shown clinical disease, to be disposed of to other farms rather than to be retained for breeding, thereby dispersing infected animals to other herds. If, as we believe is possible, maternal transmission does not occur, such measures would obviously bring no benefit because the only animals that will develop clinical signs in the future are those which are already infected but have not yet succumbed to clinical disease.

11. If the disease were transmitted from dam to calf exclusively, or nearly exclusively, there would still be a tendency for the disease to die out, because cows which became clinically affected would have fewer calves than those which remained well, and infected animals would not produce enough calves for the epidemic to be maintained. Consequently preventing the progeny of cattle suffering from BSE from breeding would do no more than accelerate the self-limitation of BSE that would occur anyway.

12. If the mechanisms of transmission were like those of scrapie, the value of applying restrictions to the offspring of known BSE cattle would be severely limited because infection could be passed to their calves and even to their offspring's offspring before the dam showed signs of the disease. Some cows could pass the disease onto their offspring without ever developing clinical signs of BSE.

13. The factors in paragraphs 10-12 above were the main considerations which led us to the conclusion that we could not advise the Government to take measures to limit the use of the offspring of cattle suffering from BSE for breeding. Such measures would either not be necessary, or would not be adequate, as a national control policy for dealing with BSE. Nevertheless, individual farmers might well find such measures appropriate. Farmers who knew that their animals had never been given feed containing meat and bone meal, for example, would no doubt want to avoid buying in breeding replacements from a herd where BSE had occurred. Some farmers might choose to fatten the offspring of BSE cattle rather than to breed from them. But such decisions will depend on the farming practices of the individuals and the advice of their veterinary surgeons. ⁴¹

MAFF issues the Advisory Note to farmers, June 1990

6.79 On 31 May 1990 Mr Maslin forwarded to Mr Maclean a revised draft Advisory Note for farmers. Mr Maslin suggested that to take into account SEAC's advice, the section on breeding be changed to:

Experiments are being carried out to determine whether BSE can be transmitted from dam to calf but results may not be available for several years. If you wish to obtain advice on breeding from the offspring of cows affected with BSE you should consult your veterinary surgeon. ⁴²

6.80 MAFF issued the final Advisory Note to farmers in June 1990. It set out general guidance on BSE symptoms, the slaughter and compensation scheme and health and safety. Mr Maslin's suggestion for the breeding section was also included. ⁴³

6.81 During oral evidence, Mr Francis Anthony of the BVA was asked what his understanding was for MAFF's withdrawal from its 1988 advice. He responded:

I wish we could have understood. We were extremely frustrated as an association because the advice not to breed from an animal which might be carrying a disease which we did not know was transmissible or not maternally, there is no other advice. We as veterinary surgeons in the field and the British Veterinary Association was representing those veterinary surgeons in the field, there is no other advice we could have given. We gave that advice, we were delighted when it was accepted by the Agricultural Select Committee and extremely disappointed of course that it was turned down by the government of the day. ⁴⁴

6.82 On 12 July 1990 MAFF issued a press release to coincide with the publication of SEAC's 'Control of BSE in Cattle' paper (see paragraph 6.78 above). It quoted Mr Gummer's written answer to a Parliamentary Question:

I have today received the [SEAC's] paper on the Control of BSE in Cattle. This paper discusses the scientific background to the opinion which the Committee offered on 17 May to the effect that there is no scientific evidence currently available to support official advice against the use for breeding of the offspring of cows suffering from BSE and that some possible consequences might even be unhelpful. ⁴⁵