Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
4. Human health developments:January - December 1990
Intensification of public concerns about the safety of beef during 1990
Introduction
Public and international reaction to the BSE developments, January - April 1990

Introduction

4.455 The rest of this chapter charts the intensification, during 1990, of the public concerns about the human health implications of BSE and the safety of beef. We cover the widespread speculation in the media and among scientists and members of the public in response to events that included the announcement in May 1990 that a cat had succumbed to a spongiform encephalopathy (SE). We look at the Government's response to these events, particularly the public pronouncements made about the implications for human health and about the safety of British beef.

4.456 We start with reactions in early 1990 to the introduction in late 1989 of restrictions on the import of beef from the UK by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. The restrictions by Germany and reports claiming that US airforce bases, in the UK and across Europe, had banned British beef resulted in great public and media attention, and the UK Government and the MLC responded, offering reassurance by making public pronouncements about the safety of British beef.

4.457 We then move on to the reports in the press in February about the results from MAFF-funded research on the dietary transmission of BSE in mice, and MAFF's comments about the results. The pressure continued to build in April 1990 when certain educational authorities banned British beef in schools. The Government was faced with the alleged prospect of other bulk purchasers, such as prisons and the NHS, threatening to follow suit.

4.458 It was against this background of mounting pressures and concerns about BSE that the discovery of a cat with SE was reported in early May 1990. This news led to intense media and public speculation about the transmissibility of BSE raising concerns for both animal ¹ and human health. We trace the story of the public media and parliamentary reaction to the news, and how the Government responded by making the most prominent public pronouncements about BSE to date. MAFF and DH issued press releases notifying the public of the discovery and attempting to quell growing consumer fears. The Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) also made public pronouncements around this time reassuring the public about the safety of beef and reiterating the measures that the Government had already taken.

4.459 The news about the cat emerged not only against a background of general public concern about the implications of BSE for human health, but also against a background of practical problems associated with implementation of the SBO ban. We have looked at these problems earlier in this chapter and mention them briefly here to set the context in which the news about the cat emerged; we do not cover these problems any further in this section.

4.460 As mentioned earlier in this chapter the House of Commons Agriculture Committee undertook an Inquiry into BSE in mid-1990 and published its report in July 1990. We have already described the evidence submitted to the Committee in relation to brain removal and MRM. In this section we look at the evidence submitted in relation to the safety of beef.

Public and international reaction to the BSE developments, January - April 1990

Initial public concerns

4.461 Concerns about the actions of Germany in placing restrictions on British beef, reported in the press in early 1990, prompted Government ministers and others, including the MLC, to seek to reassure the British public about the safety of beef.

4.462 On 9 January 1990, the Independent published a detailed and lengthy article on BSE, and described the discovery of BSE and resulting Government action. The article said:

But the Ministry has been slow to realise the seriousness of the situation and even now has not brought in comprehensive measures to prevent the spread of BSE. ²

4.463 The article discussed the action taken by Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark in banning the export of calves from BSE-affected mothers, and the US ban on all imports of cattle, embryos and bull semen from Britain.

Behind the European and American attitude lies the fear BSE in beef cattle may show up in humans. If the disease has moved from sheep to cows then there is a 'remote possibility' that it might also move from cows to people, say scientists at the Agriculture and Food Research Laboratories in Edinburgh who spent years studying scrapie.

4.464 It also noted:

The infective agent does not seem to be present in the muscle tissue which makes up most of the meat which humans eat.

'Steak has very little nervous tissue in it, and so long as the lymph glands are stripped out it is very unlikely to pass on BSE,' says Jim Hope, a veterinarian at the Agricultural and Food Research Council. Dr Hope is not at all worried about eating steak, but nothing would induce him to eat sweetbreads, spleen or brain from any animal, because he believes they are the parts most likely to be infected.

4.465 Mr Colin Maclean (Technical Director of the MLC) ³ wrote to the Independent on 16 January 1990 in response to the article of 9 January and included the following statement on BSE:

Your report on BSE in cattle was a useful chronological list of the actions taken to understand the condition and mitigate any threat. It was, however, just inaccurate enough to give the reader an entirely biased view of both the Government's speed and efficiency in dealing with it and of the risk it presents to humans.

There is no evidence that the disease is transmissible to humans. The Southwood report stated that 'the chance of it being transmissible to humans is remote.' This gives a very different slant on the risk from your statement 'there is a remote possibility that it might move from cows to people.'

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease has been recorded in a lifelong vegetarian. There is no Scrapie or BSE in Australia but the incidence of CJD is the same as in the UK. The lesion sites in the brain of CJD and BSE are different. The responses in the immune globulins appear to be different in both conditions.

The oral dose of BSE or Scrapie-affected tissue to infect either sheep or cows, or even a mouse, is enormous. A human would have to eat an impossible amount of pure cow brain at the height of infection to reach an equivalent dose and even then there is no evidence that the disease would infect humans . . .

4.466 The letter concluded that it was 'not sensible' to criticise the Government for 'openly basing their decision on scientific facts' and that funding was continuing for research on the disease. ⁴

4.467 In an article in The Times on 17 January 1990 entitled 'Gummer fights Bonn ban' Mr John Gummer was reported as commenting that the Germans were taking action to keep British beef off the market despite having been told they were wrong by scientists. He was quoted as stating 'It is a disease we want to get out of our herd but I am not worried about human health. It is quite clear to me our beef is safe.' ⁵ The Daily Telegraph quoted Dr Wolfgang von Geldern as stating that West Germany was erring on the side of caution. He added:

Sheepmeat from countries affected by scrapie, an incurable brain disease of sheep, would have to be treated in the same way as beef from Britain where bovine spongiform encephalopathy has killed more than 9000 cattle.

4.468 The article went on to state that, on the basis of figures of the previous year, if other countries followed Germany's suit British lamb producers could lose exports totalling £147 million throughout the EC and beef exporters could lose £217 million. ⁶

4.469 On the same day, the Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled 'Mad cow row: the day of the showdown', reported that Mr Meldrum was attending a meeting in Brussels with the task of persuading West German authorities and the EC commission that British beef was harmless. The article also reported that the incidence of BSE had doubled over the past six months and was affecting 400 cattle per week. ⁷ On the same day, an article in Today newspaper entitled 'Beef ban on Germany' reported that Mr David Maclean 'pledged there was no evidence that humans were at risk from "mad cow" disease'. ⁸

4.470 The European Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee met on 17 January 1990 and considered advice from its ScVC. ⁹ The advice concluded that meat from countries in which BSE occurred was 'not considered to be a danger to public health'. ¹⁰

4.471 The German restrictions were discussed on 17 January 1990 in Today newspaper, in an article entitled 'I say bullocks to British beef.'

The Americans won't eat it, the Germans want to ban it, but here in Britain those nice people who gave us salmonella and listeria say it's perfectly safe. The Ministry of Agriculture treats us almost as badly as farmers treat their poor cows. ¹¹

4.472 On 19 January 1990, an article written by David Maclean and entitled 'Don't Beef about it Buying British isn't Mad' appeared in Today newspaper. ¹² Mr Maclean claimed that alleged American restrictions on the use of British beef in US army bases had been introduced because the Americans wanted to reduce their beef surplus, rather than have their military bases in Europe buy local beef. He was quoted as stating: 'I'm happy to eat British beef because I am convinced it is safe'.

4.473 Newspapers reported that Mr Gummer was seeking to take action against the German authorities in the European Court unless their ban was lifted. The Times, on 22 January 1990, in an article entitled ' "Mad cow" disease could have been avoided', reported that Mr Gummer would be in Brussels 'to demand an end to the West German restrictions on British beef imports'. The article also described an interview with Mr Meldrum, who had 'insisted that British beef was safe'.

'I am totally content that what we are doing now is totally sound and is all that we need to do in order to remove any possibility of BSE exposure to man from cattle' he [Mr Meldrum] said. However, he added: 'I cannot say there is no risk to man from BSE. It is too early. We have only had this disease in this country for three years and the incubation period in man in cases of encephalopathies is very long indeed.' ¹³

4.474 The following day, the Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled 'Gummer to seek beef ban ruling at Euro court', reported that Mr Gummer had flown to Brussels in an effort to persuade other EC farm ministers that the German stance was unjustified. ¹⁴ In relation to Mr Meldrum's statement of the previous day, Mr Gummer was reported as stating that 'no scientist will ever say never'. He also said that British beef was safe because of strict countermeasures taken by the Government to protect the public. He was quoted as adding:

My children eat beef, my wife eats beef and I eat beef. That is everybody's absolute protection because I am going to protect them.

4.475 In late January, Mr Geoffrey John, Chairman of the MLC (1987-93), wrote to industry organisations attaching a briefing statement for all meat traders and a background paper on BSE. ¹⁵ The covering letter stated that in light of the 'overwhelming media attention this week' the MLC were 'happy to field any query' that arose. The letter stated that the attached statement, drawn up in consultation with MAFF, had been mailed to all traders on their mailing list, who could in turn show it to any customer who needed reassurance. The statement explained that BSE was a brain disease affecting cattle and that CJD was a similar, but very rare, disease affecting humans. The statement went on to say that there was no evidence that animal encephalopathies were transmissible to human beings to cause CJD or any other disease and listed the following points:

(i) There is no link between Scrapie in sheep and CJD in people even though Scrapie has been known to exist for 200 years

(ii) CJD can affect lifelong vegetarians

(iii) CJD in humans exists at the same very low level in countries where there is no BSE or Scrapie. ¹⁶

4.476 The statement added:

Top British and European vets and scientists advising the European Community have studied the disease very carefully. They are agreed that everything necessary to protect public health is being done and they do not consider there is any danger to public health.

4.477 In early February 1990 the issue of BSE entering the human food chain was discussed within DH in the context of the Food Safety Bill. In response to concerns about BSE getting into the food chain, Dr Hilary Pickles informed Dr Christine Swinson: 'I do agree with MAFF that further legal measures should not be adopted.' The 'reason for this is not that they would be difficult, but because there is no need or justification'. She concluded:

We have recently had an opportunity to discuss internally and with both PS(H) and Mr Maclean the present position and see no reason to alter our current policies. Indeed in this area we feel MAFF might be considered to have gone rather too far already. ¹⁷

4.478 On 1 March 1990, Today newspaper published an article titled 'We'd be madder than the cows to believe this bull'. ¹⁸ It reported on a programme on ITV, 'World in Action', which had 'made mincemeat out of the Government reassurances about the safety of British beef'. Professor Richard Lacey was mentioned in the article. Professor Lacey was a Professor of Clinical Microbiology and a consultant to the World Health Organisation. ¹⁹ In October 1989 he had been interviewed by Country Living magazine, and had said: 'Either BSE is of no importance because it cannot spread to man, or it is the greatest of all the food-borne dangers and may kill five per cent of the population within a generation.' ²⁰

4.479 The Today article said:

Germans won't eat it and it has been banned from the US bases. More importantly, scientists and doctors in the know won't eat it either.

Dr Richard Lacey is one of them and frankly, if British beef isn't good enough for the man who alerted us to the dangers of salmonella and listeria, then it shouldn't be good enough for us.

Dr Lacey's depressing prognosis was that if what he suspects is true, in years to come our hospitals will be filled with thousands of people going slowly and painfully mad before dying. ²¹

BSE orally transmitted to mice

4.480 The publication on 3 February 1990 of results on the transmission of BSE orally to mice and by inoculation to cattle is described in the overview at the beginning of this chapter. Two days earlier MAFF had announced these results, and their imminent publication in the Veterinary Record, by means of a press release and a scientific press briefing session at which Professor Barlow and Mr Meldrum were present.

4.481 The MAFF press release on 1 February presented the results as preliminary and in the context of the ongoing BSE research programme. It continued:

These results demonstrate that the disease can be transmitted using unnatural methods of infection, which can only be done experimentally in laboratory conditions and which would never happen in the field. Similar results were obtained some years ago in relation to experimental transmission studies of sheep scrapie to sheep and to mice. The BSE results therefore provide further evidence that BSE behaves like scrapie, a disease which has been in the sheep population for over two centuries without any evidence whatsoever of being a risk to human health. ²²

4.482 Press reports over the next few days tended to focus on the results on dietary transmission to mice. On 1 February, the same day as MAFF's press release, the Daily Telegraph ran an article entitled 'Mad cow disease passed to mice'. The article alleged that MAFF had delayed publication of the results of the dietary transmission studies:

A row has broken out in the Ministry of Agriculture over a scientific report which establishes that mice can catch mad cow disease by eating brain tissue from infected cattle. It funded the research as part of an effort to discover the degree of risk people face.

The ministry has blocked the release of the findings until they are published in the Veterinary Record, journal of the British Veterinary Association, on Saturday.

The report's author, Prof Richard Barlow of the Royal Veterinary College, said yesterday 'As far as people are concerned the findings have no significance.'

Ministers and officials, who are striving to convince the public that British beef is safe to eat, were said to be 'very upset' that some details of the report have already been discussed with a few journalists.

. . .

The ministry said last night 'We didn't want the findings reported in bits and pieces.' ²³

4.483 MAFF officials were aware of Professor Barlow's results in early November 1989. Mr Lawrence reported on these and CVL's results to Mr David Maclean on 8 November 1989 and set out the arrangements for reporting the results to the public:

The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that preliminary results of transmission studies conducted at the Central Veterinary Laboratory have shown that BSE can, under experimental conditions, be transmitted to cattle (Dr Watson's minute of 21 September refers.)

The Royal Veterinary College has been conducting studies to see if BSE can be transmitted to mice through the oral route, ie. by feeding brain material from a confirmed BSE case to mice. Results now show that transmission does take place by this means.

Clearly, we want to avoid any scare stories emerging when the results of the studies are published. We also need to avoid a misinterpretation of the results, ie. that cattle to cattle transmission does take place in field conditions. Thus, when the time comes, it will be important to emphasise that these studies are experimental - ie injecting brain material from a cow with confirmed BSE by unnatural intravenous and intra-cerebral routes providing a very large challenge - and that the results are not at all unexpected. Also that it is quite different from the large study going on using offspring of affected dams which is designed to determine whether or not dam to offspring transmission can take place under field conditions and if so at what incidence.

We believe it is essential that the results of the CVL cattle transmission and the RVC mouse oral transmission are reported together.

We will have advance warning of publication date from the Veterinary Record (Dr Watson is in close touch with the Editor). Full Q & A briefing is enclosed for use by Ministers and Press Branch. It is also intended to issue a short press statement on the lines of the draft attached. ²⁴

4.484 The arrangements for reporting the results of these two transmission experiments were developed further in late January 1990. Mr Meldrum put forward a submission to Mr Maclean on 26 January advising him that the results would be published in the Veterinary Record on 2 February, and enclosing a draft press release and Q&A briefing for use by Ministers and Press Branch. In addition he recommended a scientific press briefing on 1 February 'so that we can emphasise the experimental nature of these studies and that the results are not unexpected'. ²⁵

4.485 On 30 January Mr Andrews requested a redraft of Mr Meldrum's press release with the aim of setting the results in the context of the programme of research on BSE and emphasising that the results were produced following unnatural methods of infection. He also suggested that the press release could:

. . . bring out the similarity between BSE and scrapie more. It could say that the results of these experiments add to the evidence that we are dealing with a disease similar to scrapie, and restate the fact that there was no evidence that scrapie is transmissible to humans. ²⁶

4.486 Mr Andrews's suggestions were approved and the revised press release was approved by Mr Gummer, with some minor adjustments, the following day. ²⁷

4.487 On 2 February several national newspapers reported on the dietary transmission in mice as demonstrating that BSE could spread to other animals through eating infected food. The Daily Star, in an article entitled 'Mad Cow Threat to Humans', reported:

The shock admission came as lab mice picked up the horror disease after being fed contaminated beef. Until now it has been passed only by injection. ²⁸

4.488 It was claimed in the article that Government officials had admitted that 'mad cow disease' could be passed on to humans.

4.489 The Times in an article entitled 'Cow disease "can spread to other animals" ' reported that the results of the experiments left a question over the possible risk to people from BSE-infected material entering the food chain. ²⁹ The Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled 'First proof of mad cow disease in mice', reported:

It was the first proof that the disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for which there is no cure, can strike down another species through eating infected food but top Government vets immediately said the results presented no new health risk to the public from eating beef. ³⁰

4.490 Similar articles were published in the Independent and the Financial Times. ³¹ The Daily Express in an article entitled 'Mad cow clash', reported that fears that 'mad cow' disease could spread to humans had been dismissed by MAFF. The article went on to report that Dr Helen Grant, a retired neuropathologist, had appeared on television the previous evening (1 February 1990) and predicted that humans could be hit within 20 years. The article also reported Dr Grant as saying that infected cattle offal was still being used in pies and meat products. ³² The Guardian, in an article entitled 'Mice fed "mad cow" brains developed fatal disease', reported Mr Meldrum as saying that the discovery was 'an entirely expected result' which confirmed similar experiments conducted nearly 30 years before. Dr Helen Grant was also quoted as stating:

My gut feeling is that some genetically susceptible people may have become infected with material by eating meat products. ³³

Education authorities take beef off school menus

4.491 On 11 April 1990, Humberside County Council wrote to MAFF asking for advice on actions that could be taken to prevent any meat contaminated by BSE from being used in school kitchens. ³⁴ Mr John Maslin replied on the same day, seeking to reassure the County Council that British beef was safe. ³⁵ He claimed that 'the consumer has been protected from even the remote and theoretical risk that BSE might have had implications for human health'. ³⁶

4.492 However, on 26 April 1990, Mr Lowson minuted Mr Maclean stating that, despite MAFF's response, Humberside County Council had already taken action and had announced this to the press. ³⁷ In addition, he stated that the press had reported that Lancashire County Council had also expressed concerns but that the Department of Education and Science (DES) had no strong views as to whether MAFF should write to all local education authorities to reassure them. He stated:

I do not think there is much of a case for doing so, as a letter arriving out of the blue might be as likely to stimulate fears as calm them. ³⁸

4.493 On the question whether 'other bulk purchasing authorities' (such as the armed forces and prisons) might follow suit, Mr Lowson said he was sure that they would 'approach us first if they were contemplating a change of policy'. ³⁹ Following Dr Pickles's receipt of this minute, DH officials became particularly concerned that health authorities might consider banning British beef in hospitals. ⁴⁰

4.494 On 30 April 1990 representatives from MAFF, MLC and NFU met with Humberside County Council. The minutes of the meeting, prepared by Mr Maslin and copied to Dr Pickles among others, recorded that Mr Meldrum, speaking with the full endorsement of DH and Ministers, had pointed out the 'stringent precautionary measures' the Government had taken to protect public health from the remote risk of BSE. ⁴¹ Mr Colin Maclean (MLC) was reported to have 'described the role of the MLC had in protecting consumer interests and how the MLC had looked carefully at the implications of BSE and concluded that the Government had taken all appropriate action'. Mr Ben Gill (Chairman, Livestock Committee, NFU) asked the Council to reconsider their 'unsound decision' which he considered would frighten people unnecessarily at a time when public perception of BSE had been influenced by inaccurate and sensationalised press reports. ⁴²

4.495 One of the issues raised at the meeting was Professor Lacey's views about BSE. Mr Meldrum explained that, to his knowledge, Professor Lacey had not worked on SEs or discussed the problem with experts in the field. The Council officials at the meeting also queried why CJD was to be monitored in relation to BSE if there was no problem. Mr Meldrum stated this was in response to the Southwood and Tyrrell Reports. ⁴³ Professor Lacey told us that he had not had any contact with Humberside Council at the time they introduced their ban, although he had subsequent contact with them. ⁴⁴ Professor Lacey's views, however, had been published in the media (for example see paragraphs 4.478-4.479).

4.496 Mention was made of a letter received by the Council from a neurologist in London stating that brain was spread over carcasses and that this posed a risk. Mr Meldrum explained that animals going for slaughter were healthy, most were inspected ante-mortem and the risk of contamination was insignificant. ⁴⁵

4.497 The Chairman of the County Council said he would consider the points made by officials from MAFF but he noted that 'they had been expressed in terms of remote risk and "no evidence" and that no guarantees of safety could be given'. ⁴⁶