Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
3. Introduction of the ban on Specified Bovine Offal
Preparation of the SBO Regulations
Mechanically recovered meat (MRM)
Heads
Consideration of the enforcement of the SBO ban
Regulations to implement the SBO ban

Mechanically recovered meat (MRM)

What is MRM?

3.575 MRM is derived from the flesh-bearing bones and carcass remnants of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry by the application of high pressure to the bones to separate any adhering meat. It is used in Europe as well as the UK in the manufacture of a range of processed meat products for human consumption, including frozen sausages, burgers and pies. ¹ It is often described as a slurry or a paste, but it can be similar to mince in appearance. ² For a further discussion of the MRM industry see vol. 13: Industry Processes and Controls.

3.576 It has been estimated that the total UK production of beef MRM in the late 1980s was about 4,000-5,000 tonnes per year. ³ The 1997 audit of the bovine and ovine slaughter and by-products sector by the Leatherhead Food Research Association and the MLC estimated the potential for contamination from cattle with spinal cord:

Average contamination of beef MRM, between 1980-89, is estimated at ca 0.04%, falling to ca 0.005% between 1990-95, as the ban on the use of Specified Bovine Offals took effect . . . Typical usage rates of MRM in meat products would be ca 10%, implying considerable dilution of any spinal cord present. ⁴

3.577 Following the emergence of BSE, concern was raised that potentially infective tissues were getting into the human food chain via the MRM process. For a further discussion of infective tissues and their level of infectivity see vol. 2: Science.

MRM is first considered

3.578 Mr Bradley first raised the issue of MRM in his report on Mr Thompson's previous proposal on cull cattle (see paragraphs 3.162-3.166). Mr Bradley was concerned about disposal of brains and spinal cord. He wrote to Dr Watson and stated:

It would seem sensible that the vertebral column . . . is not permitted to be used for human food (eg, bone broth/gelatin) since it is highly likely to be seriously contaminated in an infected animal exposed in calfhood. You might consider not permitting recovery of meat scraps from vertebral column. ⁵

3.579 Dr Watson has no direct recollection of this note. He told us that he understood that, as requested by the CVO, Mr Lawrence was discussing these points with Mr Bradley and that he [Dr Watson] did not therefore become directly involved. However, Dr Watson considered that Mr Bradley would have kept him informed. ⁶

3.580 Mr Lawrence has no recollection of seeing Mr Bradley's note.

3.581 On 30 June 1989, Mr F A Eames, a Veterinary Officer (VO), sent a memorandum to Mr J Cartwright (Regional Meat Adviser for Wolverhampton) reporting that an abattoir had given up the production of MRM from cattle bones as the abattoir could not guarantee that all central nervous system tissue would be removed from the backbone. Furthermore, he stated:

I fully agree with this ruling and would suggest that similar procedures must be adopted in all abattoirs. ⁷

3.582 The manuscript notes on this minute indicate that Mr Fry, Mr David Taylor and Mr Maslin all saw this 'isolated minute'. ⁸ Mr T Boulding (Senior Executive Officer, Meat Hygiene Division, MAFF) wrote in the margin of the minute that:

. . . most slaughterhouses have an MRM plant, and there is a risk of potentially infected material entering the food chain.

3.583 Underneath, Mr Fry wrote:

Clearly the use of backbone for MRM production is more widespread than we had been led to believe. I shall be interested to know what AHD [Animal Health Division] consider we should do. ⁹

MRM in nervous tissue

3.584 On 11 July, Mr David Taylor minuted Mr Kevin Taylor about Mr Eames's memorandum, seeking Mr Kevin Taylor's advice on the potential risk involved in the production of MRM. He said:

Personally I would have thought the small amount of residual CNS material left together with the overall dilution factor in the finished product would reduce the 'risk' considerably. ¹⁰

3.585 Mr K Taylor responded on the minute that 'I suspect that you are right and that any risk - if indeed a risk exists - is further reduced by dilution'. A further handwritten note by Mr D Taylor appeared on this minute, and stated 'I suggest that no action is required on our part to stop MRM production.' In oral evidence Mr K Taylor stated:

If I had been asked the same question six months later, I would have given a different answer, but by then I would have been basing it on the assumption that all of the spinal cord had been removed from the vertebral column because that was a legal requirement by the end of 1989, and on that basis I was still perfectly happy about mechanically recovered meat. ¹¹

3.586 On 27 July 1989, Mr Maslin circulated a minute considering such issues as the use of bovine eyeballs for teaching purposes, surgical sutures produced from bovine intestines and the use of spinal cord, thymus and spleen for pharmaceutical products. ¹² Chapter 9 of this volume deals with bovine eyeballs, while medical and surgical products are dealt with in vol. 7: Medicines and Cosmetics.

3.587 With regard to MRM, Mr Maslin noted:

I am informed that one abattoir at least has stopped using cattle bones for mechanically recovered meat because of the residual presence of nervous tissue. As our action on offals is already a measure of "extreme prudence" going beyond scientific advice in the Southwood Report I assume that we do not wish to get embroiled in further measures on MRM. ¹³

3.588 Mr Meldrum responded by sending a minute to Mr Lowson the next day in which he said:

I trust that we will not become involved in mechanically recovered meat. ¹⁴

3.589 Mr Bradley responded to Mr Maslin's minute on 1 August, saying in relation to MRM:

We do not have knowledge of the infectivity of bone in BSE but in natural scrapie of sheep bone marrow is only exceptionally infected and in goats not at all. It may therefore be presumed also to be a low risk tissue in BSE but remains to be proven.

Vertebral column contains the spinal cord and segmental nerves. In bovine adults the vertebral column is split and there is the opportunity for the spinal cord to be mutilated in this process and to contaminate bone edges. Thus there is an increased risk of MRM recovered from the vertebral column bone over that derived from limb bones. This risk may be age dependent, small in calves, possibly increased in infected sub-clinical animals killed at around 2 years of age and high in affected adults or in infected animals in the late pre-clinical phase at three years and over. Clearly spinal cord must be removed before processing to produce MRM should this be allowed to continue. ¹⁵

3.590 Mr Hutchins, a Senior Veterinary Officer (SVO) from the Meat Hygiene Veterinary Section of MAFF, also responded to Mr Maslin and stated:

There would seem no justification for a ban on the use of certain bones in MRM production because of fears about the amount of nervous tissue involved. ¹⁶

Consultation responses in relation to MRM

3.591 Mr D G Higginson (Managing Director, Ulster Farm By-Products Ltd) wrote to MAFF about MRM on 22 September:

It is totally impractical to remove in total on a commercial basis the brain and the spinal cord. The carcass is normally split using a circular saw and this shatters the spinal cord and the sides of beef, after being boned out, have the residual bone treated hydraulically to produce re-claimed meat that will include spinal cord pieces, etc. This meat is used in all types of convenience foods. It is even more surprising that the sheep carcasses are not being dealt with in a similar manner to bovines as the possible spread from sheep to cattle was one of the original causes of concern. ¹⁷

27 September: meeting to discuss the responses to the consultation document

3.592 The minutes of the meeting on 27 September recorded in relation to MRM:

The proposed ban on specified offals was in itself a measure of extreme prudence, going beyond what Southwood recommended. Though some nervous tissue would be contained in MRM it would be minimal and not present a significant risk. No action should be taken on MRM. ¹⁸

3.593 Mr Ron Martin, Deputy CVO of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (DANI), made a note of the meeting which recorded the discussion of MRM as follows:

Mechanically recovered meat (MRM) - the possible danger raised by several of those consulted was recognised and during the discussion there was an expression of the illogicality of what was being done and in particular how easy it would be to have to concede the possible dangers of material other than those listed in the proposed ban. It was agreed not to raise it. ¹⁹

Mr Bradley's minute of 27 September

3.594 On 27 September, Mr Bradley sent a minute to Mr Wilesmith and Mr Maslin commenting on the response from industry about the proposed offal ban. ²⁰ He advised that he did not believe brains of calves below 6 months of age presented a risk. He noted that cross-contamination of low-risk tissue by higher-risk tissue could occur as a result of circular saw cutting and the resultant spray, and the captive bolt and pithing methods. ²¹

Mr Lawrence updates Mr Gummer and DH

3.595 In his update to Mr Gummer on 3 October, Mr Lawrence noted with respect to MRM that:

. . . although some nervous tissue would probably be contained in mechanically recovered meat (MRM), it would be minimal. The ban should not therefore be extended to MRM. ²²

3.596 However, on 24 October, Mr A J Lebrecht, Principal Private Secretary to Mr Gummer, minuted Mr Lawrence to advise that the Minister was concerned about the proposal to exclude MRM from the offal ban. ²³ Nevertheless, the submission sent to Mr Gummer with the final draft regulations on 2 November recommended:

If any cattle which are in their pre-clinical stage are being slaughtered at abattoirs it is more likely that the agent will be in the lymphatic tissue rather than the central nervous system. If spinal cord is banned it will have to be stripped out of the vertebrae prior to mechanical recovery. It is therefore most unlikely that any agent would be present in MRM. In these circumstances it is considered that MRM should be excluded from the ban. ²⁴

3.597 Mr Maclean wrote some comments on the submission. On the issue of MRM he stated:

I am not satisfied that parts of the lymphatic system or its contents cannot get into MRM.

Can you give me a guarantee that when the bones are put into the MRM machines, no part of the lymphatic tissue, system or contents would be present in the resulting puree?

How can we be sure that all abattoirs remove the spinal cord and spine cleanly - or at all - before MRM takes place?

What are the risks and possibilities of Cerebro Spinal Fluid getting onto the other meat, or the chances of lymph leaking out from damaged lymphatic vessels or nodes during slaughter, and contaminating other material during MRM, thereby ultimately reaching the human food chain? ²⁵

7 November: Ministers meet to consider Mr Lawrence's submission

3.598 The note of the meeting on 7 November recorded with respect to MRM that:

The Minister thought the exclusion of this from the ban was presentationally more difficult. Mr Meldrum explained that the risk associated with mechanically recovered meat was not greater than in the other cases where an exclusion from the ban had been agreed. Mr Lawrence confirmed that our independent advisor, Dr Kimberlin, was satisfied on this point. Mr Maclean asked whether there would be any risk associated with a rupture of the spinal cord when extracted. Mr Meldrum explained that this would not be the case, especially as we were now some time into the ban on feeding ruminant products to ruminants, which reduced any potential risk. It was therefore agreed that MRM should be excluded from the ban. ²⁶

Heads

MAFF's proposed treatment of bovine heads

3.599 Bovine heads posed a unique issue in that the brain was to be designated SBO, yet there was still meat on the head that could be recovered for human consumption. Therefore, MAFF needed to consider how the disposal of bovine heads would be managed in practice.

3.600 Mr Fry's draft instructions to lawyers, circulated on 15 June, indicated: 'we will need to cover brains in such a way as to permit the skull to be discarded rather than require the brains to be removed from it'. Thus, 'we need however to provide for heads to be able to be sent from the slaughterhouse to specialist head boning plants for removal of cheek meat etc before being discarded and stained etc'. The instructions also said that MAFF wished for the movement permit system of the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations to apply to the offal to be included in the ban. ²⁷

3.601 On 20 June, Mr Fry suggested to Mr Lawrence that 'we are going to have to provide for cattle heads to go to specialist boning plants for the removal of cheek meat'. He recognised that there would be no enforcement staff present, but 'there is no suggestion that heads should be split to remove the brains for staining'. ²⁸ Mr Taylor agreed with this recommendation. ²⁹

26 July: MAFF issues consultation document on the proposed specified offal ban

3.602 The consultation document proposed that it would be permissible to remove bovine heads from the slaughterhouse, unstained and unsterilised, in accordance with a movement permit issued under the Regulations, as follows:

Bovine heads could be moved without removing the brains to a specialist boning plant for the recovery of the cheek meat. ³⁰

3.603 It was further proposed that 'the occupier of a specialist boning plant receiving a bovine head from which the brain has not been removed would be required to stain the skull, with the brain still in it, immediately after removal of the cheek meat from the head'. ³¹

Consultation responses on the proposed treatment of bovine heads and head meat

3.604 Responses to the proposal for treatment of bovine heads and head meat included the following:

1. the IEHO raised further concerns over contamination of head meat for human consumption by tonsils. This was because head meat, particularly cheek meat, was commonly harvested after the tonsils had been split, meaning there could be residual tonsil on the meat; ³²
2. the IEHO also raised the question of where the removal of head meat should take place. The IEHO recommended that if cheek meat was to be removed, it should be done only at the slaughterhouse, 'where the skull can be properly controlled to be declared unfit'; ³³
3. the MLC questioned the need to stain heads not removed to a specialist boning plant and suggested that measures be improved in the transportation and handling of the heads to prevent contamination; and ³⁴
4. the Northern Group Public Health Committee suggested that, given the Regulations were to prevent infectious SBO from entering the human food chain, 'it seems illogical to allow such material, that is, bovine heads, into a specialist boning plant for the recovery of the cheek meat for human consumption'. If such an exception were to be made it would be important to have effective control of the head after the cheek meat had been removed. ³⁵

27 September: meeting to discuss the response to the consultation letter

3.605 The note of the meeting on 27 September does not record any discussion of bovine head issues, though it does state that for specialist boning plants, 'a definition should be included on the lines of those whose main business was the removal of meat and bones for the wholesale market'. ³⁶

3.606 Indeed, the evidence available to us suggests bovine heads received little attention during MAFF's deliberations following the receipt of responses to the consultation document, and the provisions in the Regulations essentially reflect what was proposed in the consultation document.

Consideration of the enforcement of the SBO ban

Introduction

3.607 At the Ministerial meeting to discuss the introduction of the SBO ban on 7 June, it was decided that the 'most practicable solution for preventing offals getting into the food chain appeared to be to act at the slaughterhouse. This would remove any enforcement difficulties.' ³⁷

3.608 Mr Meldrum recommended that the prohibited types of offal be separated into a bin for staining and rendering. ³⁸

3.609 District Councils, London boroughs and unitary authorities ³⁹ were responsible at the time for enforcement of meat hygiene legislation within slaughterhouses. Included within their functions was the enforcement and execution of the provisions of the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982, which provided for the staining and sterilisation of meat (including offal) unfit for human consumption. ⁴⁰ Further details on enforcement of meat hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses are given in chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this volume.

3.610 Mr Duncan Fry (Head of Branch C, of Meat Hygiene Division, MAFF) noted in a minute discussing the regulatory framework for the SBO ban, that: 'The enforcement authority will be local authorities - whose staff enforce the legislation in slaughterhouses'. ⁴¹

Response to the letter of consultation from local authorities

3.611 There appears to be little evidence of any discussion on the enforcement of the proposed ban by local authorities, until responses were received to the letter of consultation sent by MAFF to organisations affected by the proposed ban.

3.612 The annex to the consultation letter had detailed the proposals for the Regulations. It provided little detail on the role of local authorities, other than advising that the 'Regulations would be enforced by the local authorities' and local authorities would provide for the issue of movement permits to authorise the removal of unsterilised SBO from slaughterhouses. ⁴²

3.613 The Chief Environmental Health Officer from the City of Lincoln responded to MAFF that the 'proposals will create an administrative cost and burden on local authorities'. The extra 'burdens' were noted as the need to issue additional movement permits, checking premises where unstained heads are processed, the need to remove tonsils, the cost of removing large volumes of offal, and checks to ensure casing manufacturers removed lymphatic tissue. ⁴³

3.614 Mrs K J Swann (Deputy County Analyst, Lancashire County Council) noted:

Overall consideration of the new moves indicates that it will be difficult (if not impossible) for the local authority . . . to prevent the access of prohibited tissues to meat product producers. This then impinges upon the responsibilities of food and drug authorities . . . What they need to do (in concert with local authorities) is to devise a system of monitoring and testing to ensure that prohibited tissues are detected at that stage of the production chain. ⁴⁴

3.615 Mr C Kingman (Local Government Division, Department of Environment) noted that the proposals would result in an 'extension to local authorities' existing procedures' and that 'we would have preferred to see a piece in the consultation letter dealing with resource implications'. He noted he would like to know the reaction from associations involved on costs and manpower; however he concluded:

For now . . . I will record this as a new burden unlikely to result in significant costs for local authorities. ⁴⁵

3.616 Mr Nicholas Hibbett, a member of the IEHO and Senior Principal Environment Officer at Carrick Council, was asked in oral evidence whether he agreed that the ban would not result in significant costs to local authorities. He replied:

. . . in local authority we have become a little bit cynical about new regulations that will have no resource implications. They always say that, and they always do. I think in this case it was really an extension to an existing movement permit system that we just had become used to flexing into and dealing with. So I think existing resources were just moved, other priorities were dropped, this priority was taken on board. ⁴⁶

3.617 The note of the meeting held on 27 September to discuss the responses to the letter of consultation recorded the following on the effect of the Regulations on local authorities.

LAs already apply the current Staining and Sterilisation Regulations at abattoirs. Their main additional burdens would come from an increase in the number of movement permits they issue and the need to apply controls at head boning plants and sausage manufacturers. It was too late to seek extra financial provision for 1989/90 and 1990/91. The LAs should however be asked to produce a detailed breakdown of the costs involved which could be considered in relation to future years. ⁴⁷

3.618 A minute was forwarded to Mr Gummer on 3 October updating him on the progress of the ban. It echoed the minute of 27 September in its consideration of the impact on local authorities of the ban, noting that although some additional responsibilities would fall to the authorities, 'these are unlikely to be of great significance'. ⁴⁸

The meeting of 18 October

3.619 MAFF invited enforcement authority representatives to a meeting on 18 October to discuss the proposed Regulations. ⁴⁹ The note of the meeting records that the local authority organisations invited (Association of District Councils, Association of Metropolitan Authorities and Association of London Authorities) were unable to attend despite repeated attempts to convene a meeting. Those present at the meeting were MAFF, the 'Territorial Departments' (as they were then known) and the IEHO.

3.620 The following points on implications for local authorities from the Regulations were noted in the minutes of the meeting:

Movement permits

13. MAFF explained that Local Authorities would have to issue more movement permits in respect of specified bovine offal which would have to be treated as unfit meat under the new Regulations. However, the proposed Regulations provided for bulk issue of movement permits in advance where specified material was moved regularly and it was hoped that burdens would largely be able to be absorbed.

Specialist head boning plants

14. It was agreed that these premises . . . would require increased Local Authority input to supervise enforcement of the proposed Regulations. The IEHO confirmed that specific resource implications would vary according to how the existing Regulations were at present enforced in each area.

3.621 It was noted that little comment had been received from local authorities on the draft proposals, and it was 'hoped therefore that burdens on authorities would not increase too significantly'. Local authorities experiencing resource problems with regard to the proposed Regulations should contact MAFF, and resource implications for local authorities would be mentioned in the submission to the Minister. ⁵⁰ Mr Lawrence discussed this meeting in his oral evidence.

. . . only the IEHO turned up, which I thought was very frustrating and disappointing. I said that in a letter I wrote to the other organisations afterwards, because we were talking about the implications of this new legislation for them in terms of resources and other things. And we wanted to talk it through to make sure that they knew what was going on. ⁵¹

3.622 Mr Richard Lodge, Head of Food Health and Safety for Birmingham City Council, and Mr Graham Roberts, Senior Environmental Health Officer for Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, advised the Inquiry in oral evidence that they were unaware that their representative organisations had been invited to the meeting although it was a 'hectic time in terms of local government's involvement in the legislative process'. ⁵²

3.623 Mr Lawrence followed up the meeting by writing to the local authority organisations that did not attend the meeting. He referred to the suggestion that the additional enforcement responsibilities on local authorities would have resource implications.

. . . the proposed regulations would follow those for dealing with unfit meat, which are already applied by enforcement authorities through visits to abattoirs and the issuing of movement licences. As such the role of the enforcement authorities will differ little. If Ministers agree to implement the proposals as envisaged there may be an additional element of enforcement responsibility at boning plants and sausage manufacturers (for casings) but again we understand that these premises are already visited for food hygiene purposes. Additional visits should not therefore be necessary, although this will be entirely at the discretion of the authorities concerned. In the circumstances we do not foresee that the proposed regulations will place a significant additional burden on enforcement authorities. ⁵³

The submission to Mr Gummer

3.624 The submission of 2 November 1989 on the Regulations as finally drafted contained no mention of the enforcement of the ban by local authorities, but the attached Q&A brief noted:

How Will The Ban Be Enforced?

By local authority inspectors in the same way as existing controls on meat unfit for human consumption are enforced. ⁵⁴

Regulations to implement the SBO ban

The SBO ban is announced

3.625 On 8 November 1989, Mr Gummer announced details of the SBO ban in Parliament. In a news release issued that day he was quoted as saying:

All bovine animals which are found to have BSE are slaughtered and destroyed. Meat from these animals does not enter the food chain either for human or animal consumption. Earlier this year my predecessor announced that he would take a further precaution which would be to exclude certain bovine offals derived from healthy animals. Further technical studies have now been carried out and additional independent expert advice has been taken. The offals affected are brain, spinal cord, thymus, spleen, tonsils and intestines . . .

Offals from calves under six months of age will be excluded from these arrangements since any of these offals which may be used for human food will not present a human health hazard . . . This is a further addition to the very tough measures which Sir Richard Southwood's expert committee recommended earlier this year. ⁵⁵

Local authorities are contacted

3.626 On 9 November 1989, MAFF wrote to every district council in England and Wales and the local authority associations enclosing a copy of the new Regulations and informing them they would be coming into effect on 13 November. ⁵⁶ The letter said: 'If you require any further information or technical advice concerning these Regulations, please contact the Veterinary Service at your local MAFF Divisional Office.' On the same date a circular letter was issued to all DVOs alerting them to the fact that District Councils had been advised to contact the veterinary service at their local Ministry office if they have any queries about the operation of the Regulations. ⁵⁷

The SBO ban comes into effect

3.627 On 13 November 1989, the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 came into effect in England and Wales. However, in late November1989 minor amendments to the Regulations were proposed. ⁵⁸

3.628 Concerns in November and December 1989 on the part of Environmental Officers as to practical aspects of the SBO Regulations are discussed in Chapter 4.

3.629 The amendments were postponed until the Regulations were prayed against in Parliament, requiring a Parliamentary debate. ⁵⁹ In these circumstances, it was decided that the Northern Ireland and Scottish regulations should be held back until these matters had been resolved; this is discussed further in vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. ⁶⁰ We deal with amendments to the Regulations in subsequent chapters of this volume.

Debate in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments

3.630 The Parliamentary debate did not take place until 14 December 1989. ⁶¹ Mr Ron Davies, MP, Opposition Agricultural Spokesman, stated that the Opposition supported the SBO ban but had sought a debate to test whether the Regulations met the Government's objectives. He asked Ministers to explain why the sale of offal from cattle under 6 months of age at the time of slaughter was not prohibited. He argued that if there was the slightest doubt that vertical transmission of BSE could take place then the Ministry had a responsibility to safeguard public health. He also argued that there was evidence that animals infected with BSE were being identified at markets and slaughterhouses, and that while the Regulations excluded offal from such animals, they would not exclude the rest of the animal which, in some cases, showed clinical symptoms of BSE.

3.631 Mr Davies also urged the Minister to announce 100 per cent compensation for all identified cases of BSE in order to encourage farmers to send the animal to slaughter as opposed to market. ⁶² In reply, Mr David Maclean (Parliamentary Secretary, MAFF) stated that, firstly, the source of infection had been cut off for well over a year, so that calves under 6 months had not been exposed to the agent in feedstuffs and, secondly, that there was still no evidence whatsoever that BSE could be transmitted to offspring. On the effectiveness of the Regulations he stated that it was known, from an analogy with scrapie, that the agent was concentrated in the lymphoreticular and central nervous systems of infected animals. ⁶³ Mr Maclean added:

The dairyman will suspect that the animal has BSE only if he sees clinical signs. In that instance the incentive will be to have that animal destroyed on the farm rather than to risk trying to put it on the market, where our detection systems can pick up the small number of cases of animals with BSE that have moved from farm to market. The assessment of animals at the slaughterhouse ends up lower - on the estimated market value - than the estimate made on the farm. There is an incentive to the farmer not to send the animal to market but to have it assessed and to get his 50 per cent of the on-farm value, which is greater.

. . .

There are then checks and inspections at markets and slaughterhouses. There is a control mechanism there to provide the second stage. Then, of course we have these regulations. They are the final belt and braces. ⁶⁴