Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
4. Human health developments:January - December 1990
Intensification of public concerns about the safety of beef during 1990
May 1990: Spongiform Encephalopathy in a cat
Media reaction to the news about the cat
Public pronouncements on the safety of beef by Government Ministers and officials

May 1990: Spongiform Encephalopathy in a cat ¹

The discovery

4.498 On 8 May 1990, Mr Gerald Wells, Head of Neuropathology Section, CVL, ² minuted Mr Raymond Bradley (BSE Research Coordinator, CVL), Mr Wilesmith and others at CVL reporting a 'scrapie-like spongiform encephalomyelopathy' in a 5-year-old male domestic cat. ³ He reported that the cat had been referred to the University of Bristol School of Veterinary Science. Mr Wells had visited the laboratory and examined the histological sections of the cat. He noted in his minute:

The pathomorphology in this case leaves little doubt regarding the nature of disease but in view of the far reaching consequences of the diagnosis additional work is required before it can be confirmed as a member of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy group. ⁴

MAFF and DH response

4.499 The following day, Mr Robert Lowson of the Animal Health Division minuted Mr Gummer with copies to, Mr Gueterbock, Mr Capstick, Mr Meldrum, Mrs Attridge, Mr Lawrence, Mr Bradley, Mr Wells, Mr Wilesmith and Dr Pickles. The minute was also copied to the Agricultural Departments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. ⁵ The minute noted CVL confirmation that a cat had died after suffering from SE, and continued:

2. Although this is the first firm recorded instance of a cat being infected by apparently natural means, it is not particularly surprising; it has been known for some time that cats are susceptible to CJD by experimental inoculation, and greater public awareness may have meant that cases that previously went unnoticed will now be suspected based on clinical symptoms. Nevertheless once this information becomes public (as is inevitable) it is bound to excite comment and a connection will be made with BSE, scrapie and possibly even with CJD.

3. After discussion with Mr Simon Dugdale (Chief Information Officer, MAFF) we recommend that, rather then wait for the story to emerge, we should take the initiative in releasing the information. This would be done by means of a letter to the Veterinary Record, but as the first issue in which it could be published would be that on Friday week, 18 May, it would be better to release the text in advance. If ministers agree, this release could be accompanied by a press briefing by officials, possibly on Friday of this week.

4. . . . We [MAFF] will . . . concert our approach with DOH and the British Veterinary Association, and recommend that they should both participate in the Press Briefing . . .

5. . . . Detailed further enquiries will be needed; it is not certain that this is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. More needs to be known about the circumstances in which this animal might have been infected; although it is most unlikely that further enquiries will lead to any firm conclusions.

6. . . . Clearly this case will bring into sharp relief all the various issues that have been troubling the media for some time . . . Above all it will be important not to encourage the public to jump to conclusions about the likely origin of this case . . .' ⁶

4.500 On the same day, Dr Pickles minuted Mr Stephen Dorrell, DH Parliamentary Under-Secretary, ⁷ about the cat, with copies sent to Sir Donald Acheson and Dr Metters. She stated:

Although there are previous instances of experimental infection in cats, there have been no previous natural infection reported. The assumption must be the cat became infected by scrapie/BSE agent in its food . . .

First thoughts are that this new information does not affect our views on the lack of hazard of BSE to man. Although humans are in close contact with cats, these disorders are not spread by intimate contact. However, the implications of this must be considered by the full Tyrrell Committee.

Concerns for MAFF include:

BSE has spread to yet another species: how many more?

Whether it should still be permissible to include offal in pet food.

Renewed pressure to ban the feeding of processed sheep and cow offal to pigs and poultry.

Could there be spread between cats or to other species from cats?

MAFF have informed the Pet Food Manufacturers Association and the British Veterinary Association. Details of the case will be published next week. They plan a low key press statement in the next day or two in anticipation of the news breaking. We are in close contact with MAFF and are asking them to discuss this urgently with our outside joint experts. ⁸

4.501 On 10 May 1990, Dr Pickles minuted Dr Jeremy Metters, Deputy CMO, and the CMO with further information about the cat. Dr Pickles offered two alternative explanations for the cat's infection: ⁹

. . . Previously there have been no natural cases of spongiform encephalopathies described in cats. Experimenters have succeeded in transmitting - although infrequently - CJD by intracerebral inoculation to cats, but have not succeeded with scrapie. The Bristol Veterinary School are particularly interested in spongiform encephalopathies and may have picked up lesions that would have been missed by others. It is quite likely that previous cases in cats - particularly if the clinical presentation found with this case is typical - would have been missed.

The implications have to be considered at leisure by the new Tyrrell Committee. Dr Tyrrell is on holiday but the others are being informed on the phone. Assuming further investigation does not question the diagnosis or reveal unusual routes by which this cat could have been infected, there are two main possibilities. Firstly, that cats have been susceptible to ingestion of infected meat for years and cases previously have gone unrecognised. Secondly, a new agent, presumably BSE, is virulent in a way in which previous agents such as scrapie have not been. The second possibility is most unlikely, but more worrying since it challenges the assumptions we have made for humans by analogy with scrapie . . .

The potential hazard for humans from cats can be assessed on the assumption feline spongiform encephalopathy behaves like others in the family, in particular in the way the infective agent is distributed. Parenteral exposure to 'risk' (ie lymphoid/nervous) tissue are the main concern. MCA confirm no feline ingredients go into pharmaceuticals. PD confirm the same for devices. That leaves accidental exposure in an occupational setting which is being referred to the HSE. Veterinarians are being informed by the BVA. Neurophysiologists and others that experiment on cats, could need some advice. In a domestic setting there does not seem any problem, although bites and scratches may need further consideration. Some people are said (at least by the tabloid press) to eat cat food. If we follow the Southwood line, even if this contains agent in 'risk' tissues now banned for human consumption, the hazard is negligible.

. . . the public may start asking again about pig and poultry feed. We must be fully involved in discussions, particularly as some essential pharmaceuticals are made in pigs. The press, on being reassured catgut does not come from cats, could question where it does come from; perhaps [company name deleted] should be warned.

MAFF meeting on the cat

4.502 On 10 May 1990, Mr Gummer met Mr David Maclean, Mr Meldrum, Mr Lowson and others to discuss how to make public the information that a cat had been diagnosed with SE. ¹⁰ A note of the meeting prepared by Mr Gummer's Principal Private Secretary Mr A J Lebrecht, and copied to Mr Bradley and Mr Wells, among others, records:

[The CVO] confirmed the Minister's assumption that there was no likely connection between this case and BSE. Nor was the illness necessarily linked with the cat's diet. We knew that cats could be infected by the injection of high doses of CJD virus, but it had not been possible to inject them with the scrapie virus. No experiments had been done on cats using BSE virus. This was the first discovered case of a spongiform encephalopathy in a domestic cat although there had been a case involving tigers in the 1970s where it was alleged the animals had an encephalopathy. As regards the present case, the cat had fed on a wide range of pet foods including cooked fresh meat bought from a local shop. The Minister concluded from this that, if it weren't for the general public interest in encephalopathies, the death of this cat would not be a matter of significance. However, given the public interest, it was desirable to make the information available as soon as possible.

After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the letter to the veterinary record giving information about the case would be issued as a press notice that day. ¹¹

4.503 There is a conflict of evidence as to whether the note is an accurate reflection of what transpired at the meeting. We return to this in the discussion section of this chapter.

4.504 This meeting is also discussed in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96, as the discovery of SE in a cat had implications for animal health.

The MAFF press release and Mr Meldrum's press briefing

4.505 After the meeting on 10 May 1990, MAFF issued a news release entitled 'Spongiform Encephalopathy in a Cat'. This stated:

Pathologists at the Bristol Veterinary School and MAFF's Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge have diagnosed a sub-acute spongiform encephalopathy in a five-year-old Siamese Cat originating from the Bristol Area.

Keith Meldrum the Ministry's Chief Veterinary Officer has written to the 'Veterinary Record.' A copy of his letter is attached. ¹²

4.506 The attached letter outlined the facts of the discovery and the symptoms noted in the cat. In the letter Mr Meldrum stated:

Such findings have not been reported previously in domestic cats.

Inquiries into the case will continue, but there is no evidence that the condition is transmissible nor is there any known connection with other animal encephalopathies. ¹³

4.507 Mr Meldrum also conducted a press briefing on 10 May 1990. A 'speaking note' had been prepared for Mr Meldrum on the cat, which he states was used as the basis for the briefing. ¹⁴ It included statements that:

Inquiries into the case will continue, but at this time there is no reason to associate this case with any other animal encephalopathy that occurs in Great Britain. Transmission studies with material from this cat will commence as soon as possible but results are unlikely to be available for at least a year.

The case is not entirely surprising, bearing in mind that some cats have been found to be susceptible to some encephalopathies under challenging laboratory conditions and that there is a heightened awareness of the animal encephalopathies in the UK at this time and therefore laboratory examination of material will now be undertaken that would not have been undertaken previously.

This case should be seen for what it is. A single case of a spongiform in a population of some 7 million cats. There is no evidence that the condition is transmissible and there is no known connection with the other transmissible animal encephalopathies. Detailed investigations will continue and the results will be published in due course. ¹⁵

Media reaction to the news about the cat

4.508 The MAFF news release and Mr Meldrum's briefing sparked off great media interest. Later that evening, ITN's 'News at Ten' broadcast a report which included both an introduction by its newsreader and a news clip:

Julia Somerville: Experts at the Ministry of Agriculture are trying to find out if there is a link between the illness of a pet cat and the Mad Cow disease, BSE.

Mr Keith Meldrum: This is only one cat death out of seven million cats in the UK, and there is no reason or cause for concern at all. If we hadn't got the other encephalopathies in animals in this country, this report would have been published without comment. ¹⁶

4.509 The news clip of Mr Meldrum was also shown on the news on BBC1 at 6pm.

4.510 On 11 May 1990 several newspapers reported the story. An article in the Daily Mirror, entitled 'Mad cow threat to cats: Killer bug scare', claimed that 'millions of pet cats could be in danger following the discovery of the first case of "mad moggy disease" '. ¹⁷ The article stated that worried Labour agriculture spokesman Dr David Clark had attacked the Government in the Commons for not doing enough to combat the 'plague'. He was quoted as stating that the discovery was a 'major new dimension' and that 'every pet owner in the country will be deeply alarmed'.

4.511 Mr Meldrum, in an article in The Times entitled 'Mad cow symptoms found in pet cat', was quoted as stating:

There is no need for pet owners to change their pet food or to consider putting their cats down. The risk to man is no greater than it was before the diagnosis.

4.512 He was later quoted in the article on the finding that the post-mortem examination of the cat found 'typical lesions of Spongiform Encephalopathy'.

'Such findings have not been reported previously in domestic cats at this stage, this is the only known case in the seven million cats in Britain.' ¹⁸

4.513 The Daily Telegraph published an article titled 'Mad cow disease check as cat dies'. ¹⁹ This reported Mr Meldrum 'stressed that there is no danger to owners of cats and said that there is no known dog encephalopathy'. The article also reported:

'This case is not entirely surprising,' said Mr Meldrum. He pointed out that cats in 'challenging laboratory conditions' have succumbed to an encephalopathy, although researchers had not been able to transmit the sheep disease scrapie to them. ²⁰

4.514 The Guardian, in an article entitled 'Cat had "mad cow" disorder', reported that veterinary experts said it was 'purely speculative' to link the cat's disorder to BSE. The article concentrated on the implications in relation to pet food but reported Mr Meldrum saying that the case had 'not changed the Government's assessment of the possible risk to humans from BSE'. ²¹

4.515 The Financial Times published an article entitled 'Scientists confirm first case of "mad cat disease" '. ²² This reported Mr Meldrum as saying that farmed mink had also transmitted the disease by biting each other in cages. The article concluded by stating:

The Government continues to insist that health risks to humans are remote, but in January it announced a new £12 million research programme into the disease. The West Germans are still refusing to import any British beef unless it is de-boned and the European Commission has imposed an export ban in all live British cattle over six months old.

4.516 The Daily Express, in an article titled 'Pet food probe in "mad cat" mystery: Cow bug could be the culprit', reported that an investigation had been ordered to find out whether pet food caused the death of a cat. ²³ The article added that concern had been growing about the possibility that mad cow disease could pass to humans which was why the Germans and Russians had imposed a ban on British beef.

4.517 The Sun printed an article called '10 Reasons why we should treat Mad Cow like Black Death'. ²⁴ The article stated that 'mad cow' disease could be the biggest threat to humans since the Black Death plague and claimed that news of cats dying of the disease was evidence to show that humans were also at risk. The article said that by setting up a research programme the Government was acknowledging that there could be a risk.

Mr Wells

4.518 Mr Wells drafted a minute to Mr Bradley on 11 May 1990 commenting on the way that the finding of SE in the cat had been 'trivialised' in representations to the media. His minute read:

SCRAPIE-LIKE ENCEPHALOPATHY IN A SIAMESE CAT

The comments made by the CVO on BBC1 News at Six, 10 May 1990, on this subject were unfortunate, inappropriate and provocative.

The current situation requires a guarded public statement. The findings are preliminary but have potential agreed importance and should not, from virtually all viewpoints, have been represented as inconsequential.

Even at this early stage of the investigation the indications are: that this is unlikely to be an isolated incident; that the cat is susceptible to a scrapie-like disease by a route other than the intracerebral; that the origin of infection is likely to be cattle or sheep and that the possible vehicles of implications include products of the rendering industry, prepared pet food and fresh meat trades. The temporal occurrence of this incident is also consistent with possible exposure to scrapie or BSE agents during the period of recycling of carcasses of clinically affected cattle in addition to the continuance recycling of sheep material.

Reassurance regarding this incident from both the CVO and the BVA in the media is at present an over optimistic response which may well, in a very short time, result in a loss of credibility for the veterinary profession in this whole sensitive subject area.

Furthermore the trivialization of the occurrence in the public statement made has incensed the research workers in the Departments of Veterinary Pathology and Veterinary Medicine, the University of Bristol Veterinary School whose professionalism, foresight and co-operation in informing MAFF in confidence, of their findings provided a valuable forewarning which less sympathetic individuals and organisations may well have relished circumventing. This has potentially comprised further collaboration on the present material and subsequent communication of the subject.

In the interests of all concerned please could you advise the CVO appropriately. ²⁵

4.519 This minute was not sent. The matter is discussed further in the discussion section of this chapter.

'Leading food scientist calls for slaughter of 6 million cows'

4.520 Professor Richard Lacey gave a telephone interview to a Mr Andrew Neil, who was rehearsing as a radio presenter. Professor Lacey did not realise his interviewer was editor of the Sunday Times. They talked about food matters in general, including BSE. ²⁶

4.521 On 13 May 1990, the Sunday Times carried the front-page headline 'Leading food scientist calls for slaughter of 6m cows'. The article included the following:

Professor Richard Lacey, a former government health adviser, said people should not eat beef until half the herds in Britain, each of which had at least one infected cow, had been destroyed and beef had been proved safe to eat again.

4.522 The article then noted that government scientists described Professor Lacey's comments as 'alarmist'. Professor Lacey was then quoted as saying:

'We need authoritative advice from medical doctors instead of all those ministers, vets and civil servants who are telling us that everything is safe,' he said. 'We now have two new mammals - cattle and cats - infected naturally for the first time by this agent. The likelihood is increased of the possibility of transmission to man from cattle.'

Mr Meldrum was reported in the article as accusing Professor Lacey of 'pure supposition, over-reaction and scare-mongering.' He was quoted as saying:

'To suggest that the discovery of a spongiform encephalopathy in a cat increases the risk to man is absolute nonsense.'

'The basis on which we are saying that beef is safe is that the agent of scrapie has not been detected in the muscle of sheep affected with scrapie.' ²⁷

4.523 David Maclean, the Minister for Food Safety, said that Professor Lacey was 'good at popping up in the media with scare stories'.

'Even the most elementary scientist knows that this disease cannot be passed from cow to cow like an infection . . .' ²⁸

4.524 On the same day the Mail, in an article entitled 'Slaughter cows, says scientist', repeated Professor Lacey's warning on the risks of eating beef and the increased likelihood of transmission of BSE to man. ²⁹

4.525 The Sunday Times carried a story entitled 'Mad cow fears slice British beef off the menu: Schools ban home-grown meat as image of the cow takes a basting'. ³⁰ This reported that Pocklington Woldgate School in Humberside, despite being located in 'one of the nation's proudest farming regions', had banned British beef from its school menu because of BSE. It was also stated that Humberside County Council was the first authority to ban British beef from all its 470 schools after deciding that African meat was safer than that farmed by some of the local parents. The report continued that:

The fears, voiced by a small group of outspoken scientists, were reinforced last week when it was disclosed that a domestic cat in Bristol had been found with a disease showing many of the signs of BSE including sponge-like holes in the brain.

. . .

Yet the Ministry of Agriculture has insisted that beef is perfectly safe, although it now admits its advice is based on the available evidence and that there is no scientific proof. Each time a new health risk has been identified from BSE the ministry has first said that it was not a risk; then admitted it could be a risk; and then introduced new safety rules to curb the risk.

4.526 The article also quoted Dr Helen Grant as saying:

Since scrapie has already been transmitted to so many animals and now, apparently, to cattle and cats, why should it not be transferred to Homo sapiens? ³¹

4.527 On 14 May 1990 the Daily Mail included an article entitled 'Crisis over British Beef' which reported that fears about BSE had reached the Soviet Union, which had banned a shipment of Angus beef. ³² The beef was due to be served to VIPs, including the Princess Royal, the Prime Minister (Mrs Thatcher) and President Gorbachev at a trade banquet in Kiev. The article added:

The Soviet move is an indication of how seriously the situation is being taken. Three quarters of a ton of Angus beef was to have been cooked for the banquet during British Month in Kiev - now it may be replaced by Argentine meat.

4.528 The article also reported Mr David Maclean as saying that the Russians had reacted without knowing the facts and that he would explain the situation to a Soviet delegation. He was reported as being 'confident that British beef would be back on the menu at Kiev'.

4.529 The public concern about BSE and beef continued on 15 May 1990, and Today newspaper printed an article entitled 'Beef sales plummet as boycott spreads: Confusion for shoppers'. ³³ It was reported that a beef boycott by families worried about the risk from mad cow disease had cost farmers £120 million and the meat industry had launched a £1 million campaign to reassure panicking shoppers.

4.530 On the same day Mr Gummer wrote to Lady Wilcox, the Chairperson of the National Consumer Council, with advice for consumers on the safety of beef. (This letter was later published as a press release; details of the letter are given further in paragraph 4.559.) ³⁴

4.531 Lady Wilcox responded with a letter dated the same day stating that she was sending the 'advice' to those member organisations of Consumer Congress with an involvement and interest in food safety and consumer advice. ³⁵ She added:

We appreciate, however, that because of the long incubation period of the disease, the results of all the relevant research cannot be expected for some time; therefore the evidence is incomplete.

We expect your Ministry to take all steps which are considered necessary to protect human health. This may mean further action.

4.532 Press reports on 14 May 1990 had suggested that many education officers were considering taking British beef off school menus because they were unsatisfied with answers to their questions about its safety. Today newspaper, in an article entitled 'Schools mad cow ban spread', reported that head teachers around the country were considering banning British beef. ³⁶ Humberside County Council, which had ordered beef off the menu at 470 schools, was to be joined by Birmingham and Lancashire County Councils. The Sun, in an article called 'Farmers' fury as schools ban beef' reported that the news had been ill received by members of the NFU in Humberside. ³⁷ The Times, in an article titled 'Professor renews call for beef ban', reported Professor Lacey as being 'unrepentant' and repeating that people should not eat beef until 6 million cattle were slaughtered. ³⁸

4.533 The story received considerable press attention over the following days. On 15 May 1990 the Daily Star printed an article called 'Gravest warning for kids on Mad Cow Disease: Should beef be off the menu'. ³⁹ The article advised mothers to stop feeding their children beef and quoted Professor Lacey as saying that it was unwise to give beef to youngsters until the threat of BSE had been beaten.

4.534 The Guardian newspaper reported that several authorities had followed Humberside County Council in imposing a complete or partial ban on the serving of beef and beef products in schools. It was reported that Staffordshire Council was proposing to ban beef sausages, beef-burgers and mince, but would allow cuts from joints to remain on the menu, while Liverpool City Council had banned all beef (UK and foreign) and said it was considering a ban on lamb because of concern about infection from scrapie. Richmond-upon-Thames Council, it was reported, had withdrawn beef from primary and junior schools but not from secondary or tertiary schools. ⁴⁰

4.535 An article in Today, called 'MAD COW MINISTERS EXPOSED: New Evidence, but they duck and dive the vital questions', reported that a 'top EEC scientist is convinced the outbreak, which has cut meat consumption by six per cent, was caused by undercooking cattle food containing offal'. The article stated:

Key ministers last night waved aside the damning new evidence and shrugged off the mounting concern. They ducked and dived when confronted with questions over the growing scandal.

At the Education Department, a spokesman said: 'If local authorities want advice they have to ask the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health.'

The Ministry of Agriculture said: 'It is a matter for the Ministry of Health.'

And the Health Department said: 'We are not issuing any advice of any sort. If a warning was necessary, it should come from the Ministry of Agriculture.' One angry health administrator complained about the lack of guidance to hospitals.

'We are completely in the dark. We have not heard a bloody word from anybody one way or another.' ⁴¹

4.536 On 16 May 1990 an article in Today newspaper, called 'Mad cow Ministers stick to sausages', featured a photograph of David Maclean holding a sausage and reported him as declaring that 'British beef is safe'. ⁴²

Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) press release

4.537 The intense media response to the MAFF press release about the cat prompted the MLC to issue a press release on 14 May 1990. ⁴³ This was entitled 'BSE SCARE "OVERBLOWN" SAYS MLC SCIENTIST' and stated:

British consumers are in danger of being unnecessarily alarmed by inaccurate and misleading news items surrounding bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) - commonly referred to as 'mad cow disease'.

4.538 The press release went on to quote Mr Colin Maclean (Technical Director of the MLC) as saying:

'All the scientific evidence - as opposed to rumour, conjecture and guess - provided by leading veterinary surgeons and scientists in the UK and the rest of the EEC has indicated that UK beef is perfectly safe to eat.

'Even if no further action had been taken following the outbreak of the disease there was considered to be no risk to consumers from eating beef.

'But the UK Agricultural Departments have gone well beyond this and instituted a set of precautions that should have removed any remaining doubts. Consumers can eat beef with confidence.

'They have made the disease notifiable. They have bought in a slaughter and compensation ruling which removes the diseased animals long before they have a chance to get into the food chain. They have introduced legislation requiring all potentially suspect material from other cattle, such as brains, spinal cord, thymus and spleen, to be removed from the food chain at slaughter.

Any one of these moves should have been enough to remove any fears. Taken together they add up to a virtually impregnable barrier to further transmission.'

4.539 The press release discussed the finding of the SE in the cat and continued to quote Mr Colin Maclean:

'Now that scientists know about these diseases it is only to be expected they will find them in an increasing number of animals and probably in an increasing number of countries . . . That does not mean it is being spread from species to species.'

. . .

He concluded: 'I regard the current wave of alarmist stories and overblown claims by certain individuals about BSE as grossly irresponsible and totally misleading. Consumers can be assured that beef is perfectly safe.' ⁴⁴

4.540 Mr Colin Maclean commented in his oral evidence to us:

This particular press release coming out immediately after the announcement of a TSE in a cat; and the press was - well, I can only describe it as went berserk and the stories were extreme and alarmist. Therefore it is perfectly true to say we needed to do something and something immediately. This press release is in response immediately to that. ⁴⁵

This press release is considered in the discussion section of this chapter.

Public pronouncements on the safety of beef by Government Ministers and officials

Events on 15 May, leading up to the press release by MAFF

4.541 On 15 May, DH circulated a statement about the safety of eating beef to health authorities and local authorities. MAFF issued three press notices. The evidence is unclear as to the extent of the consultation and agreement between the Departments over the terms of these documents.

DH circular to health authorities and local authorities

4.542 Sir Donald Acheson, CMO, told us that press coverage following MAFF's press release on the cat resulted in 'a rapidly escalating panic' and by 15 May both MAFF and DH responded by issuing public statements. ⁴⁶

4.543 In a minute to Mr Dorrell, Dr Pickles attached a draft Parliamentary Question and said that Dr Tyrrell was content with the proposed line. (Dr Tyrrell was on holiday, and had been consulted by telephone.) ⁴⁷ The draft read:

The new committee (SEAC) has recently reviewed new information about BSE and current control measures and concurred with the opinions given in the Report of the Southwood Committee that the possibility of a hazard to humans remains remote. There is therefore no scientific justification for the action by Humberside County Council and British beef can be eaten by both adults and children with confidence. ⁴⁸

4.544 Dr Pickles noted that Dr Tyrrell would be meeting the CMO the following day to discuss recent developments, prior to an emergency meeting of SEAC on 17 May 1990.

4.545 A later minute sent on the same day from Dr Pickles to the CMO and Mr Dorrell enclosed a draft statement which she said had been agreed by the CMO, DH Press Office and MAFF. ⁴⁹ Dr Pickles suggested that this could be sent to health authorities and local authorities. The draft statement said:

According to the advice of outside experts to the Government there is no scientific justification to avoid eating British beef. Beef can be eaten safely by everyone both adults and children [including patients within the NHS].

4.546 In a later minute to Ministers on 15 May 1990, Dr Pickles stated that the text of a draft statement had been agreed with MAFF, the CMO and the DH Press Office. ⁵⁰

4.547 The final minute sent out by Dr Pickles on 15 May to health and local authorities read:

The Government have taken advice from the leading scientific experts in this field. They have consistently advised us that there is no scientific justification to avoid eating British beef. Beef can be eaten safely by everyone both adults and children including patients within the NHS. ⁵¹

Proposal to discuss a draft leaflet for consumers

4.548 On 15 May Dr Pickles minuted Mr Dorrell, saying:

MAFF seem to be under pressure over unfounded fears that British beef is dangerous because of BSE. Unfortunate action by one of the County Councils in banning British beef in its schools looks like spreading. MAFF would welcome a statement from us to demonstrate our support for their line that beef is still OK. ⁵²

4.549 In a further minute to Mr Dorrell she stated that in the face of 'press criticism' MAFF had asked for active support from DH and the intention was to send the 'line to take' to health authorities and EHOs as soon as possible.

4.550 The minute also said MAFF had a leaflet planned for consumers and that the draft would be discussed with Mr Gummer later in the day. ⁵³ Dr Pickles has said to us that she did not say she specifically would be doing 'that discussing'. ⁵⁴

4.551 Mr Gummer recalled 'Press coverage of the suspected case of an SE in a cat was extensive, and critical, and MAFF sought support from the DH'. ⁵⁵

4.552 Mr Gummer said in a written statement that he met Dr Pickles in the afternoon of 15 May. ⁵⁶

That afternoon I met Dr Pickles to discuss the proposed public statements on BSE, including the wording of a draft leaflet for consumers to be issued by MAFF. This also said that British beef, was safe, was not a public health risk and could be eaten with confidence. Subsequently the DOH's statement to Health Authorities was sent out and MAFF issued a press release containing a written answer to a parliamentary question from William Hague MP. ⁵⁷

4.553 He later told us in oral evidence (after being informed of Dr Pickles's statement (below) that this statement was based 'upon documentation rather than upon recollection'. ⁵⁸ He also said: 'I cannot recollect the events of that day, which is after all ten years ago . . .' ⁵⁹

4.554 Dr Pickles has said in a supplemental statement to us that she remembers being involved in the meeting with the NFU on 15 May 1990, but does not believe she later met Mr Gummer.

I can remember a meeting with the NFU, although I needed the written record to remind me of the date and details. Mr Gummer's statement seems to imply we had a one-to-one meeting in the afternoon, and I do not believe I would not remember that. Had I agreed a form of words so different from that which we had agreed within DH and with my CMO, I feel sure I would have remembered it. Mr Gummer's memory may be better than mine, though I point out that meetings with ministers were rare occurrences for me, and hence more memorable, whereas he had frequent meetings with officials, and presumably they would be less easy to recall. ⁶⁰

4.555 Dr Pickles advised us that she knew of no written record of the meeting.

As far as I know, there is no written record of a meeting at which I agreed wording of public statements with Mr Gummer. Although many other records exist from that time, there are of course many missing too. From the papers available to me, as well as there being no written record of the meeting, there is not even allusion to the meeting in related papers, and various other evidence suggests events did not take place as Mr Gummer describes. ⁶¹

4.556 Mr Gummer commented again on the alleged meeting in a supplemental statement to us:

As my original statement records, I met with Dr Pickles, representatives of the NFU and others on 15 May 1990. As on that day both the Department of Health and MAFF were drafting public statements on the question of the safety of British beef, I considered when making my original statement that is was highly likely that I would have taken the opportunity on 15^th May 1990 to discuss the matter with Dr Pickles. I still consider that to be the case. However, it is true that there is no minute recording a separate meeting between myself and Dr Pickles, nor any minute recording that we did discuss that topic in particular. If Dr Pickles can be absolutely certain, given the length of time that has passed, that we did not discuss the proposed public statements, I cannot disagree with her. ⁶²

4.557 The only recorded meeting on 15 May between Dr Pickles and Mr Gummer was their discussion with representatives of the NFU. Mrs Attridge, Mr Gueterbock and Mr Kevin Taylor of MAFF also attended. ⁶³ It appears the meeting took place at 4.15pm, according to a prior minute from Mrs Attridge. ⁶⁴

4.558 The conflict of evidence between Mr Gummer and Dr Pickles is considered further in the discussion section of this chapter.

The MAFF press releases

4.559 The first MAFF press release (184/90) stated that Mr Gummer, who was described as 'Food Minister', had written to Lady Wilcox to set out the measures being taken to deal with the problem of BSE (this letter was mentioned above in paragraph 4.530). A copy of the letter was attached and said:

The disease

BSE is a brain disease of cattle which belongs to the same group of diseases as scrapie, which has been in the sheep population for over 250 years. The most likely cause of BSE was the feeding to cattle of compound rations which contained protein material derived from sheep some of which were infected with scrapie. The practice of feeding ruminant protein to ruminants, including cattle, sheep and deer, was banned in July 1988 so the source has been cut off.

Human health

There is a very rare disease in humans called Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease (CJD) which has an incidence of less than 1 in a million people and world wide distribution. Despite scientific studies over many years, a link has never been found between scrapie and the human disease CJD, which occurs in countries where scrapie does not exist and which has been known to affect a lifelong vegetarian. There is no reason to believe BSE will be any different from scrapie and independent experts have concluded that BSE is most unlikely to have any implications for human health.

Other species

Some ruminant zoo animals have been reported with a scrapie-like disease which they acquired from the same food source as cattle. There have been cases reported outside the UK in mink, again traced to infected feedingstuff fed on a continuous basis. There is no record of pigs or poultry ever getting the disease. A recent post mortem of a cat in the UK showed a brain condition which is being further investigated. There is at present no evidence that it is transmissible or connected with other animal brain disease of the scrapie family.

Action taken

Tough measures have been taken to ensure that the consumer is reassured and protected:-

All cattle suspected of having BSE are slaughtered on farms and destroyed so that no part can enter the food chain. Farmers receive full compensation for their animals.

As an additional safeguard, tissues that might contain the agent which causes the disease (brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestines) in healthy cattle are banned from any use in human food. Cattle under 6 months are exempt since they have not been fed ruminant protein and no cases of scrapie have been found in very young animals.

The precautionary measures taken go further than experts thought necessary to deal with any BSE risk, however remote and theoretical. Added to which studies on scrapie show that the agent which causes the disease is not found in meat. British beef is therefore not a public heath risk and can be eaten with complete confidence - a view endorsed by the European Community's top scientists. ⁶⁵

4.560 A second press release (185/90), was issued on the same day. This was entitled 'British Beef is Safe, Gummer', and stated: ⁶⁶

British beef is perfectly safe to eat John Gummer, Food Minister announced today.

In a written answer to a Parliamentary Question from William Hague, MP, (Richmond, Yorks) Mr Gummer said:

'The wide ranging measures adopted by the Government have been based on the best scientific expertise available. These experts concluded that the risk to humans is remote but action has been taken;

1. to slaughter and destroy all affected cattle so that no part can enter the food chain;

2. specified offals, including the brain and spinal cord, must be removed from healthy cattle slaughtered for human consumption;

3. banning of the use of these offals as food or in the food products

The removal and banning for food of these offals is a precautionary measure which goes beyond the scientific advice. These actions fully protect the public from what is a remote and theoretical risk.

4.561 The press release went on to state that the situation was being kept under constant review, hence the Committee under Dr Tyrrell had been constituted and a major research programme had been in progress since 1986 with a further £12 million allocated to research. It also stated:

Local Education Authorities can therefore continue to provide beef in school meals with complete confidence. As the Minister responsible for food safety for the whole nation, let me reiterate that British beef is perfectly safe to eat. This is the view not only of our top scientists but also European Community experts.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is committed to making public all the information that we have about these matters. That is why we gave out the information about the one cat (out of Britain's 7 million) diagnosed as having an encephalopathy. There is nothing to link that encephalopathy with BSE or scrapie, or to suggest that it is transmissible. However, we were determined that all this should be in the public domain and we shall continue our investigations, the results of which will also be announced. ⁶⁷

4.562 A further press release (INF3/90) again repeated the contents of the letter to Lady Wilcox and was issued by the MAFF Food Safety Directorate. It included 'BSE: Questions and Answers'. ⁶⁸ One of the questions was 'Is the recent case of a dead cat being diagnosed as suffering from an encephalopathy not a disturbing development as it suggests a cross-species transfer of this disease?' The answer was:

This particular case is being investigated but no evidence to show it is associated with BSE or scrapie, or it is transmissible. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave the details of the result of the post-mortem on this cat because of our commitment to provide all information to the public. ⁶⁹

4.563 Another question addressed was 'Isn't it true that not enough is known about BSE to ensure the public is protected?' The answer provided was:

Although BSE is a recent development, a similar disease in sheep, scrapie has been studied extensively. That research provides a solid foundation for dealing with BSE. Our policy has been endorsed by the EC's independent scientific advisors. ⁷⁰

Mr Gummer demonstrates his faith in beef

4.564 On 16 May 'Newsnight' on BBC2 featured television footage of Mr Gummer feeding his four-year-old daughter Cordelia a beef-burger to demonstrate his faith in the safety of beef. Unfortunately the effect was spoilt, as Cordelia would not eat the beef burger as it was too hot. The commentary noted that Mr Gummer was 'happy to chomp his way through a beef burger' but Cordelia was 'less enthusiastic'.

4.565 An article in the Daily Telegraph the following day noted that although grilled steak had been 'on the menu' at Downing Street, and Mr Gummer had 'shared a beef burger with . . . Cordelia', 'a succession of local authorities, now totalling 20, said they preferred to err on the side of caution and took beef off the menu.' ⁷¹

4.566 On 17 May 1990 an article in The Times reported that Mr Gummer insisted that beef was 'perfectly safe'. The article also featured a photograph of Mr Gummer feeding the beef-burger to Cordelia. The caption under the photograph stated 'Where's the beef? Mr John Gummer pressing a burger on his daughter Cordelia aged four, at Colchester yesterday to underline his contention that beef is safe.' ⁷²

4.567 The newspaper also announced that the House of Commons Agriculture Committee had decided the previous day to undertake an inquiry into BSE and that Mr Gummer had said he would be happy to cooperate with the inquiry.

DH press release

4.568 Sir Donald Acheson described his reaction to the report of SE in a cat, and his reluctance to make a public statement without the advice of SEAC, in a statement to us.

I heard of the first recorded case of FSE in a report from Dr Pickles dated 9 May 1990. ⁷³ Although I was aware that scrapie material had transmitted to mink I nevertheless remained deeply concerned about the possible implications of a further transpecies 'jump' of BSE. On the basis of the information in Dr Pickles' report and her second report dated 10 May it was not immediately clear whether this represented a new disease, possibly caused by BSE infected pet food, or was a naturally occurring case of SE, previously unrecognised in cats. In either case it was important to get expert advice as soon as possible. I therefore gave instructions that although the first meeting of SEAC had just occurred and a second had been arranged for 2 July, an additional emergency meeting must be called. The first practicable date was 17 May. It was my earnest hope that I would not have to make a public statement on the significance of the case of FSE before having the advantage of the advice of SEAC on that date. ⁷⁴

4.569 Sir Donald Acheson told us that it was clear to him by Tuesday 15 May 1990, that it would be necessary to issue a statement about beef. He first re-read the Southwood Report. ⁷⁵ He recalled:

The scale of the panic was such, and I was criticised that I had not made a comment . . . that the Press Officer said on 16^th: 'You must make a pronouncement, the press pressure is so enormous.' ⁷⁶

4.570 After meeting with Dr Tyrrell and Dr Pickles, and consulting Dr Will and Dr Kimberlin, ⁷⁷ Sir Donald then proceeded to issue a press release which stated:

British beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, confirmed today. This advice has been given to the National Health Service.

Sir Donald said 'I have taken advice from the leading scientific and medical experts in this field. I have checked with them again today. They have consistently advised me in the past that there is no scientific justification for not eating British Beef and this continues to be their advice. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital'. ⁷⁸

4.571 Sir Donald gave a television interview later on 16 May 1990. An extract of this interview appeared on BBC1 6pm news. ⁷⁹

James Wilkinson : Today the Government's Chief Medical Officer lent his support to official efforts to restore confidence in beef.

Sir Donald: There is no risk associated with eating British beef and everyone - children, adults, patients in hospital - can be quite confident that it is safe to eat beef.

4.572 SirDonald's statement was re-broadcast on BBC2 'Newsnight' later that evening, introduced by the following comment from Peter Snow.

And in an unusual step, the Chief Medical Officer made it clear he believed British beef was safe. ⁸⁰

4.573 Later in the programme, scientists were invited to comment on his statement.

Peter Snow: But what is your view about the judgement made by those authorities up and down the country, quite a lot of them now, who are deciding that for the moment that children anyway should not eat beef.

Dr Ridley: I think they should have taken the advice of the Chief Medical Officer who is the expert on this and he has advised that beef is perfectly safe to eat.

Peter Snow: Helen Grant, what do you say to that? We have had Donald Acheson today, the Chief Medical Officer, saying that there is no danger in British beef.

Dr Helen Grant: Yes, well, he doesn't really know whether there is any danger. Nobody really knows.

Peter Snow: Well, would he say that if he didn't know? If he wasn't very, very sure?

Dr Helen Grant: Well, I don't know why he says it. But the fact is that there is a theoretical risk, as I've already said. ⁸¹

The 'safety of beef' paper

4.574 In its emergency meeting on 17 May 1990, SEAC confirmed that it would endorse the CMO's statement and would confirm this in writing. SEAC met on 17 May 1990. ⁸² The minutes of the meeting recorded the views of the members on this issue:

In describing the risk [to humans] as no greater than those of everyday life, this was not to imply that they were in any way comparable, say, to smoking. BSE was of a much lower order of magnitude. But in the present state of knowledge it would not be justified to state categorically there was no risk to humans and it was not appropriate to insist on a zero risk.

4.575 In the event members of SEAC had some difficulty in agreeing the terms of the endorsement of the CMO's statement. A letter and accompanying annex dealing with the safety of beef was finally agreed and sent to the CMO on 24 July 1990 (see paragraphs 4.672-4.675). The nature of these documents and the manner in which they were drafted are relevant to consideration of the appropriate use of expert committees. This is dealt with in vol. 11: Scientists after Southwood.

4.576 Prior to the final preparation of the letter, Dr Pickles met with the CMO on 23 May 1990. In a minute the next day, forwarded to the CMO and Dr Metters (among others), she noted:

I have spoken to the Bristol vet about cat spongiform encephalopathy. What I hear disturbs me, since he believes (on clinical grounds mostly) the disease is new for cats and says the other experts in this country, a professor in Liverpool, agree with him . . .

CMO wanted to review all the evidence for himself before deciding if and how to write on the safety of beef. There are some obscure references I still have not obtained but the reliable evidence comes from natural scrapie (experimental disease could have a very misleading tissue distribution) . . . ⁸³

4.577 In the minutes of a meeting of Permanent Secretaries on 24 May 1990 attended by Sir Donald Acheson, it was noted:

Sir Donald Acheson said that the case that humans were not at risk from BSE through eating beef rested on the analogy with scrapie, where, despite continued consumption of lamb and mutton, cases of similar diseases in human beings had been exceedingly rare, and in no case had there been an apparent link with sheep. It had also proved very difficult experimentally to transfer diseases of this sort between animals, except through brain tissue. The outbreak of a BSE type disease in cats was potentially worrying. It was possible that cats had been contracting the disease for a number of years without this being known, but even if this was not the case it did not necessarily establish that it was possible for humans to contract the disease. ⁸⁴

Response from the CMOs and other public health officials in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

4.578 Sir Donald Acheson's statement on the safety of beef elicited a mixed response from his fellow CMOs in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The response in Wales and in Scotland is set out briefly below and is covered in greater detail in vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland CMO, Dr James McKenna, issued a separate statement a few days later in which he endorsed Sir Donald Acheson's statement, adding that the scientific evidence was complex. Dr McKenna went on to note that the considered opinion of leading experts was that, in spite of a remote theoretical risk, the precautions now being taken made it safe for the public to eat beef. ⁸⁵

4.579 In response to news of Sir Donald's imminent announcement and having seen the draft statement, Dr Deirdre Hine, CMO, Wales (1990-97), convened a meeting of the Health Professionals Group (comprising Welsh Office medical advisers and external medical professionals) on 16 May. The meeting considered the available evidence about CJD and identified several issues on which they later sought clarification from Dr Pickles. ⁸⁶ Some attendees were concerned about the potential for BSE to be transmitted to humans and advised caution in making categorical statements that beef was safe or 'completely safe'. ⁸⁷ The meeting concluded that the Welsh Office should not separately endorse Sir Donald's statement. On the same day, Dr Hine sent a minute to others in her department confirming that, if the Welsh Office could not avoid commenting publicly on these issues, the line to take was:

That we have been informed by the Department of Health that they have concluded based on the advice of their outside experts that there is no scientific justification to avoid eating British beef. ⁸⁸

4.580 Sir Donald's statement was endorsed by Dr Kenneth Calman, then CMO in the Scottish Office (1989-91), who told us that he did not issue a separate statement on the basis that 'several statements from several people might have been confusing in public terms'. ⁸⁹ However, Dr Gerald Forbes (Director of Environmental Health, Scotland, 1989-93), previously SMO at the Scottish Office, raised questions in several public arenas about the assurances that had been made about the safety of beef. ⁹⁰ He also questioned the way BSE was being investigated and the effectiveness of the measures in place to control it. His widely reported comments led to some concern in the Scottish Office. While officials recognised that they could not bar Dr Forbes from speaking publicly, they thought that he should have reflected and consulted before doing so. ⁹¹ Further details on the steps taken by the CMO in relation to this and on Dr Forbes's further activities are given in vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Media reaction to MAFF and DH press releases and Mr Gummer's statement that 'beef is safe'

4.581 The press releases from MAFF and DH sparked off further media interest and speculation. On 17 May 1990 an article in The Times entitled 'MPs launch beef inquiry' reported that an urgent Parliamentary inquiry had been launched in an attempt to dispel widening public anxieties about BSE. ⁹² In conclusion the article reported that the move to ban beef from school menus had spread to the Greater Manchester Area following decisions by seven other education authorities around the country.

4.582 On the same day two articles appeared in the Daily Telegraph. The first of these, entitled 'Thought for food', commented that British food 'crises' seemed to be an everyday occurrence and that BSE had plunged Mr John Gummer into the latest one. The article stated:

He says he has taken the very best advice available from his Agricultural Ministry's Tyrrell Committee about the incidence and possible transmission of the disease and that there is no evidence to suggest that BSE can be passed on to the human species. Others have turned this argument on its head saying there is no evidence to show it cannot. Some local authorities have begun placing restrictions on the use of various British beef products as a 'precautionary measure'. Spokesmen for the Labour party have not been slow to harry an increasingly beleaguered Mr Gummer as if he were personally responsible for the emergence of the virus. Mr Gummer must know that many of his critics are behaving illogically and irresponsibly but he must also see that, whichever way he turns, he cannot win. Indeed, he may already feel the ghost of Edwina Currie's shattered political reputation hovering a little too close for comfort. ⁹³

4.583 The second article was entitled 'Mad Cow fears force inquiry'. ⁹⁴ This claimed that an urgent inquiry into the threat posed by 'mad cow disease' was launched by the Commons Agriculture Committee on 16 May as the Government stepped up efforts to reassure the public that beef was safe to eat. It was stated:

But while Sir Donald Acheson, the Government's chief medical officer, insisted there was no scientific justification for banning British beef, more councils removed it from school menus.

4.584 The article went on to state that the number of local authorities banning British beef in schools by then totalled 20 and included Sheffield, Clwyd and Wolverhampton councils.