Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
2. The slaughter and compensation scheme
The operation of the slaughter and compensation scheme
Ante-mortem inspection in domestic slaughterhouses
Insuring against BSE

Ante-mortem inspection in domestic slaughterhouses

Ante-mortem inspection as a means of tightening compliance with the slaughter and compensation scheme

2.78 The policy of slaughter and compensation sought to minimise as far as practicable the entry of any BSE-affected animal into the human food chain. However, concerns continued to be expressed that owners were not notifying BSE suspects and that, as a result, cattle infected with BSE were being sent to be slaughtered and entering the human food chain. The presence of veterinarians at slaughterhouses to inspect animals prior to slaughter was considered one means of restricting the number of BSE-infected animals that were 'slipping through' in this way.

2.79 Although DVOs had been asked to ensure that slaughterhouse operators were aware of BSE and its clinical signs, MAFF was essentially relying on the honesty of those dealing with the cattle in the slaughterhouse to report suspect BSE-affected cattle. Ante-mortem inspection was required for all slaughtered animals in EC export-approved slaughterhouses (under the supervision of Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs)). In addition ante-mortem inspection was required in domestic slaughterhouses in Scotland (by a meat inspector or a veterinary surgeon). ¹ There was no requirement or system of ante-mortem inspection in domestic slaughterhouses in England and Wales. ² This was perceived by some as a serious shortcoming. ³

2.80 At meetings in February and May 1989, the Public Health Committee of the British Veterinary Association (BVA), concerned at the possibility of BSE cases entering slaughterhouses undetected, called for ante-mortem inspection by a veterinarian at domestic slaughterhouses. ⁴ Mr Robert Young (a former OVS and President of the BVA) described the absence of ante-mortem inspection in domestic slaughterhouses as a 'grave concern to our association'. He told us:

It would require a veterinary surgeon carrying out ante-mortem inspection to diagnose these conditions in very many cases. It was not a job for lay inspectors. In fact in most abattoirs, domestic abattoirs, there was no ante-mortem inspection by anybody, veterinary surgeon or otherwise. ⁵

2.81 On 1 June 1989, Mr Lambert, Private Secretary to Mr MacGregor, summarised the position in a note to the Minister on the enforcement of BSE legislation:

A perhaps more serious loophole in the system is that there is no system for inspecting cattle at slaughterhouses ante-mortem - except in Scotland and in export approved slaughterhouses. This means that, for animals going to slaughterhouses producing for domestic consumption, there are no checks being done to determine BSE infection and we are relying entirely on the honesty of those dealing with the cattle to report infection. ⁶

2.82 The value of ante-mortem inspection in detecting BSE cases was confirmed by Mr Iain Crawford (Director of VFS):

At ante-mortem, if the animal is suffering from BSE, the chances are that it will be evident to a veterinary surgeon because of the stress of the journey to the abattoir, the upset of the animal, which tends to trigger off symptoms. On the farm, it can be very difficult in the early stages. A stockman might notice it because he is dealing with the animal every day. A veterinary surgeon called in, looking at the animal for the first time, might decide it is not BSE. But certainly the upset of going to a market and then an abattoir does tend to trigger the symptoms. ⁷

2.83 Mr Crawford also confirmed that it might prove difficult for slaughterhouse staff correctly to identify BSE at the ante-mortem stage without the assistance of a veterinarian:

The slaughterhouse staff, the lairage operators, might consider that the animal is not normal, an abnormal animal, and call for a veterinary decision, but they may well have missed an early stage animal. It depends how closely they are looking at the animals. ⁸

Pressure for ante-mortem inspection

2.84 In evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Meldrum explained the beginning of the momentum for a change of policy in this area:

In May 1989 concern was being expressed in various quarters about the possibility that there was under-reporting of BSE and that some clinically affected cattle might enter the human food chain. Although there was no evidence that this was happening informal discussions took place as to what could be done to allay these concerns and the value of ante-mortem inspection of cattle was mentioned in this respect. ⁹

2.85 On 6 June 1989, Mr Meldrum, Mr Cruickshank, Mr Lawrence and Mr Gueterbock met Mr MacGregor. The issue of introducing ante-mortem inspections of cattle at slaughterhouses was raised. Mr Meldrum expressed the view that the Government was 'vulnerable' because no ante-mortem inspections were carried out in domestic slaughterhouses. He stated that there was a 'strong case' for having some ante-mortem inspection and estimated that the introduction of such inspections would cost around £200,000 a year. It was agreed that this point would be dealt with as part of a package of measures, including a ban on the use of bovine offal for human consumption. Mr Meldrum undertook to submit fuller advice, including the resource implications, within the next two days. ¹⁰

2.86 Action after that meeting appears to have been swift. On 7 June 1989, Mr Lawrence circulated a minute to officials within MAFF in relation to ante-mortem inspection at non-EC-approved slaughterhouses in England and Wales. He stated that he considered it 'appropriate to undertake some random ante-mortem inspection' in all slaughterhouses, focusing particularly on those which processed the bulk of the carcasses. The minute raised the legal and resource implications of introducing such a scheme, and asked officials to respond if they could foresee any 'insurmountable difficulties' with his proposals. ¹¹

2.87 Response to Mr Lawrence's minute was not wholly sympathetic. Mr Duncan Fry (Meat Hygiene Division, MAFF) argued that ante-mortem inspection in non-export slaughterhouses seemed 'anomalous'. This was because only about half of the cattle in export slaughterhouses received an export stamp and were therefore subject to veterinary ante-mortem inspection. Furthermore, he stressed the particular difficulties and the expense involved in introducing veterinary ante-mortem inspection as recommended by Mr Lawrence. ¹²

2.88 Mr Crawford addressed the points raised by Mr Fry in a further minute circulated within MAFF on 12 June 1989. He confirmed that MAFF 'need not necessarily try to achieve full cover' in respect of ante-mortem inspections, suggesting that the knowledge that a veterinary surgeon could be present might deter farmers who would otherwise be tempted to send a suspect BSE case to slaughter:

Our field staff will be able to advise on those abattoirs which receive appreciable number of cows (for example, more than 10 per day) and will know the pattern of presentation - ie whether they arrive in the lairage at one particular time or throughout the day. It would be our intention to require a LVI [Local Veterinary Inspector] to be present when there is the opportunity to see an appreciable proportion of the intake. The knowledge that a veterinary surgeon could possibly be present in the lairage would have a deterrent effect on those farmers likely to be tempted to slaughter a suspect case of BSE. ¹³

Mr Meldrum recommends ante-mortem inspection in domestic slaughterhouses

2.89 On 11 July 1989, Mr Meldrum put a submission to Mr MacGregor about ante-mortem inspection at non-EC-approved slaughterhouses. He said:

This note is to seek the Minister's agreement to entering into discussions with Local Authorities with a view to veterinarians carrying out random ante-mortem inspection at those abattoirs where currently no such inspection takes place. ¹⁴

2.90 Mr Meldrum outlined the background to such a proposal:

One of the criticisms levelled against the Ministry had been that some clinically affected animals were entering the food chain because (a) farmers are not satisfied with 50% compensation rate and (b) there is no ante-mortem inspection at non-EC approved slaughterhouses. Although the new measures to ensure that certain bovine offals are not available for human consumption should reassure the public and minimise any possible human health hazard, the Minister has asked that consideration be given to the setting up of a system of random inspections in non-EC approved slaughterhouses. This would act as a deterrent to any would be offender and would also provide a check on whether the allegations about evasion have any foundation. ¹⁵

2.91 Mr Meldrum contemplated that, to avoid delay, Ministry VOs could carry out the work initially and, in the longer term, arrangements would be made for Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs) to conduct the random inspections:

The random inspection would focus on domestic abattoirs where cows are slaughtered. Just over 500,000 were slaughtered last year. In practice about 65% are handled at EC approved slaughterhouses where there is ante-mortem inspection. Of the remainder a large proportion are dealt with in relatively small number of domestic abattoirs, i.e. 70 plants handle 92% of the throughput at non-EC approved plants. Thus resources could be concentrated on those plants, with occasional visits to other plants. ¹⁶

2.92 A handwritten note on the bottom of the minute stated:

The Minister wonders how necessary this action is now that we are banning offals from all cattle. It would be helpful to see the arguments on both sides in a little more detail. ¹⁷

2.93 Mr Meldrum asked Mr Lawrence to draft a suitable response to the Minister for his signature, advising that the measure was needed to prevent evasion. ¹⁸

2.94 On 24 July 1989, Mr John Gummer succeeded Mr MacGregor as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr Meldrum persuades the new Minister that ante-mortem inspection is necessary

2.95 On 25 July 1989, Mr Lowson prepared a briefing paper on animal health for incoming Ministers. Designed to provide background on relevant issues, it said the following about ante-mortem inspection:

There has been some suggestion that because there is no ante-mortem inspection by a veterinarian at domestic slaughterhouses (as opposed to the position which applies at EC approved slaughterhouses) animals showing clinical signs are slipping through the net. We do not consider that this is the case since we believe that staff working at domestic slaughterhouses will recognise the signs. However, we have taken steps to make doubly sure that they are alert to clinical signs of BSE and consideration is currently being given to introducing random inspections [by] MAFF vets and LVIs. ¹⁹

2.96 On 1 August, Mr Lawrence circulated for comment the draft submission he had prepared for Mr Meldrum's signature. ²⁰ Mr Crawford was generally supportive. ²¹ However, Mr K Taylor took a very different view. He favoured an increase in compensation rather than the institution of ante-mortem inspection at domestic slaughterhouses. In a minute which he sent to Mr Meldrum on 4 August he said:

The proposal . . . however, is an expensive way of looking for needles in a very large haystack, at considerable cost and little likely benefit.

. . .

I believe there are more effective ways of spending £200,000 of public money. The argument presented has been that 50% of compensation for confirmed cases is inadequate because the slaughter value of a suspect is greater than the maximum compensation - and that this imbalance encourages the unscrupulous owner to cheat. It is true that in recent months changes in published prices for cull and milking animals lend credence to this argument.

In my opinion £200,000 would be better spent by increasing the % payment for confirmed cases. If 6,000 cases are confirmed in a year, at an average compensation of £300/animal (at 50% level), the additional sum would enable compensation at 55% of valuation to be paid . . .

The increase in compensation levels which I have advocated would:

destroy the argument that, by paying inadequate compensation, the Ministry is encouraging farmers to evade the rules

enable a new Minister to claim some kudos from the industry for his willingness to take a fresh look at a problem. ²²

2.97 On 15 August 1989, Mr Meldrum sent Mr Gummer a copy of his 11 July submission with a covering minute explaining Mr MacGregor's request for further consideration. Mr Meldrum commented:

Even with a ban on bovine offals there will still be some tissues in the carcass that could contain the agent of BSE. Examples would be the peripheral nerves and lymph glands. Spot checks in the lairage before slaughter would thus go even further in maintaining public confidence as long as it was presented purely as a measure to ensure that clinical cases do not enter the food chain rather than raising the potential problem of additional parts of the carcass which may contain the causal agent.

There is another reason for suggesting this action. The Minister will have seen my note of 26 July informing him that cattle to cattle transmission has taken place under experimental conditions. One aspect to emerge from this study is that the stockman can detect very early signs of BSE, i.e. before the more overt clinical signs appear. Since these early signs may be recognised by those who have seen previous cases of BSE, there might be a temptation to send suspect animals for slaughter when the first clinical signs appear and before they would be evident to the outside observer. Clearly this would circumvent the notification procedures in our BSE Order. ²³

2.98 Mr Meldrum remained convinced that the proposal was necessary:

In all the circumstances my advice is that we should proceed with this exercise to determine whether clinically affected cattle are slipping through the net. It would reduce the possibility of evading, deliberately or otherwise, the legal requirements under the BSE control procedures. If, in spite of this additional measure, attempts were made to break the law, we would be in a better position to prosecute offenders which, if successfully concluded, would undoubtedly have a deterrent effect. If, on the other hand, the random inspections confirm that there is little or no evasion we would be better placed to refute allegations that under-reporting is occurring. ²⁴

2.99 Mr Gummer agreed with the proposal. ²⁵ A draft animal-health circular was produced by Mr K Taylor on ante-mortem inspection, on which Mr Meldrum commented. ²⁶ This was eventually published on 23 November 1989 and is discussed at paragraph 2.105 below.

2.100 On 18 October 1989, Mr Lawrence and other officials met representatives from the Institute of Environmental Health Officers to discuss the measure. The note of the meeting records Mr Lawrence as saying:

Whereas most BSE cases were found on farm, 52 in the first 6 months of this year had been found at abattoirs in Great Britain. While the stress of transport was believed to exacerbate the clinical symptoms of the disease, it was suggested that to obtain the full market value, unreported cases were being presented at domestic abattoirs where unlike EC approved abattoirs there was no ante-mortem inspection by veterinarians. To overcome this MAFF intended to introduce shortly random inspection by veterinarians at domestic slaughterhouses to identify possible cases of BSE. ²⁷

2.101 MAFF stressed the need to act quickly to implement the scheme 'for reasons of public reassurance and Parliamentary pressure, notably from the Opposition'. ²⁸

2.102 On 27 October 1989, Mr Lawrence wrote to the Association of District Councils, the Association of London Authorities and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities explaining the decision to introduce random ante-mortem inspection at domestic slaughterhouses:

But because there is no ante mortem inspection by veterinarians at these [domestic] abattoirs we have concluded that it would be wise to introduce random inspections by veterinarians in order to identify cases of BSE that might otherwise not be reported. Initially these will be conducted by State Veterinary Service staff but, in the longer term, arrangements will be made for Local Veterinary Inspectors to take on this task. Inspections will focus on domestic abattoirs but will, on occasions, include export-approved slaughterhouses. I want to emphasise that in no way do we wish to interfere with the duties of EHOs [Environmental Health Officers], who we hope will continue to keep a watchful eye for signs of the disease. In any case if, in the event, we find no evidence of evasion it may not be necessary to continue with these random inspections. ²⁹

2.103 Mr Lawrence also noted the following:

There have been suggestions that some farmers are submitting cases for slaughter rather than reporting them to MAFF. We believe that most, if not all, suspect cases identified at the abattoir are, in fact, a result of the distress of transportation which exacerbates clinical symptoms of the disease not previously apparent. Nevertheless, we need to establish the true position so that we can assess whether we need to review the present arrangement. ³⁰

2.104 On 6 November 1989, Mr Lawrence reported to Mr Gummer that following discussions with the BVA and local authorities, MAFF was now ready to proceed and selective inspections would commence within the next two weeks. ³¹

2.105 On 23 November 1989, MAFF issued Animal Health Circular No. 89/53 to DVOs and veterinary staff in England and Wales. It stated that some ante-mortem inspection of cattle would now be required in domestic slaughterhouses to ensure that cattle suspected of being infected with BSE 'do not go unreported due to the lack of veterinary input'. It stated that arrangements should be made immediately to implement these inspections. In domestic slaughterhouses slaughtering 70 or more adult cattle per week, two inspections per week were required. The DVOs were instructed to identify domestic abattoirs processing a significant number of cattle over 3 years of age, as these were the most likely to be exhibiting symptoms of BSE. Once the relevant plants were identified, the DVOs were to inform plant management and the relevant local authority that random inspections would take place. As for the inspections themselves, the circular stated:

Ante-mortem inspection of cattle 3 years of age or older should be arranged as follows:-

1. At plants slaughtering 70 or more adults per week, there should be two inspections per week. Such inspections should last no more than one hour unless a suspect is identified which requires further observation or other action. Visits should be timed so that as many 'target' animals as possible are likely to be present, but avoiding predictability where possible.
2. At plants slaughtering fewer than 70 adults per week, random spot checks should be made. It is essential that plant management are not given advance notification of when random checks are to be made. Inspections should last no more than half an hour unless suspects are identified.

2.106 The circular also required DVOs to submit a monthly return detailing the number of inspections made, the number of animals inspected and the number of BSE suspects identified. ³²

Changes to the ante-mortem inspection programme

2.107 On 17 January 1990, MAFF issued Animal Health Circular 90/6 to DVOs and veterinary staff in England and Wales. The Circular advised that from 5 February 1990 responsibility for ante-mortem inspections in domestic slaughterhouses was to be transferred to LVIs. DVOs were to nominate and brief suitable LVIs and to inform local authorities of the new arrangement. If LVIs identified suspect BSE cases, they were to inform DVOs in the normal fashion. In addition the DVO was required to continue to submit monthly returns about the results of the inspections to Tolworth. ³³

2.108 In February 1990, a minute by Mr Rennie in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS) to Lord Sanderson, Minister of State at the Scottish Office, recommended retaining the existing 'well-proven Scottish system'. He commented that the system which had been operating since 1961 required the inspection of all animals prior to slaughter whether for the domestic or export market, rather than the random checks proposed in England and Wales. The possible downside in Scotland was the use of meat inspectors rather than vets. He provided the following description of the changes in England and Wales:

Since November 1989 ad hoc arrangements have been operating at around 70 domestic abattoirs in England and Wales killing adult cattle (in which clinical signs of BSE are more likely). Veterinary officers of the State Veterinary Service have undertaken random ante-mortem inspections. These were regarded as interim arrangements while the Ministry consulted the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and organisations representing local authorities (who are responsible for meat inspection and hygiene in domestic abattoirs) with a view to LVIs (ie. veterinary surgeons employed on a contract basis by MAFF to undertake various functions) taking over this BSE surveillance work. Discussions between the interested parties have now been concluded and responsibility for carrying out ante-mortem inspections at non-EC approved abattoirs was transferred to LVIs from 5 February 1990. ³⁴

2.109 Nearly one year later on 1 January 1991, the Meat Inspection (Amendment) Regulations 1990 came into force, making ante-mortem inspection of all livestock a requirement in domestic slaughterhouses in England and Wales. This regulation implemented EC Directive 88/409 which required Member States to inspect all fresh meat intended for the domestic market. This inspection was not performed by a veterinary surgeon but by Authorised Meat Inspectors (AMIs). However, when AMIs identified an ailing animal, they were required to have a veterinary surgeon provide a second opinion as to its fitness for slaughter. ³⁵ The arrangements in Scotland remained unchanged since they already had a comparable system in place.

2.110 On 16 July 1991, Mr K Taylor forwarded to Mr Meldrum a paper from Dr Matthews in which the latter proposed that LVI ante-mortem surveillance should be discontinued. In his covering minute Mr Taylor said:

Dr Matthews has prepared the attached minute suggesting that the surveillance for unreported cases of BSE currently being undertaken in abattoirs by LVIs is no longer justified by the results and should be abandoned. The argument is not really about money: nevertheless a saving on LVI fees in excess of £120,000 could be expected.

The big change in abattoir practice since the survey was started is the introduction of statutory ante-mortem inspection in domestic abattoirs at the beginning of the year. It is for this reason that I support the proposal by Dr Matthews, and recommend that the LVI ante-mortem surveillance should now be terminated. ³⁶

2.111 Dr Matthews's paper was based on statistics for 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. He commented that 'introduction of the surveillance in 1989 was rather patchy, hence the statistics for that period are less reliable.' He summarised the results as follows:

In summary, LVIs made 3,323 visits in 1990 to inspect 31,256 animals. In doing so they identified 29 suspects, of which only 14 were confirmed. On the other hand, meat inspectors, and abattoir owners and managers reported another 60 suspects, of which 34 were positive.

For the first quarter of 1991, LVIs made 909 visits, and inspected 9,615 animals. Only 12 suspects were identified, of which 6 were positive. Other reports from domestic abattoirs identified 32 suspects, of which 18 were positive.

Since 1st January 1991 ante-mortem inspection of all animals slaughtered as domestic animals has been a statutory requirement. Although this is not necessarily carried out by a veterinary surgeon I understand that once an animal is thought to be unfit for slaughter a veterinary opinion is sought.

I believe that the vast majority of suspects reported to us as a result of LVI surveillance would, under the circumstances which now pertain, have been reported by other personnel anyway. While I appreciate that we need to be seen to monitor slaughter cattle, it is difficult to justify 909 visits to identify 12 suspects, when the remaining 32 would have involved only a single veterinary visit by the VO receiving the report . . .

There would also be a financial saving if LVI surveillance were to be discontinued . . . the payment to LVIs for the 1990 visits was in the region of £106,00 to £130,000.

I therefore recommend that we consider abandoning BSE surveillance by LVIs at domestic abattoirs, relying on the new lay ante-mortem inspections to identify suspects. ³⁷

2.112 Mr Meldrum replied to Mr K Taylor on 19 July 1991, seeking more detailed information for the first six months of 1991, and noting that he was more interested 'in identifying as many BSE suspects as possible and not with the financial consequences of the LVI surveillance system'. ³⁸

2.113 On 22 July, Mr K Taylor minuted Mr Meldrum noting their discussions on this since 19 July and their agreement that 'the possible adverse consequences of discontinuing LVI surveillance now are more important than the potential saving of LVI fees and that the survey should therefore continue unchanged'. Mr Taylor also noted that the question 'might be reconsidered when full veterinary antemortem inspection is introduced in all slaughterhouses'. ³⁹

2.114 The requirement for full veterinary ante-mortem inspection was introduced by the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992, which required OVSs to supervise ante-mortem inspection in all slaughterhouses by 1 January 1993 as part of the European Single Market harmonisation. ⁴⁰ Animal Health Circular 92/166 was issued on 31 December 1992, explaining the new requirements and stating that LVI surveillance was to be discontinued unless local authorities had yet to appoint an OVS, in which case the instructions were to remain unchanged until a veterinary surgeon had been appointed. ⁴¹

Insuring against BSE

2.115 Within weeks of the introduction of the scheme in August 1988, the NFU Mutual offered farmers an insurance policy to protect against the risk of loss from the operation of the scheme. ⁴² The policy made up the difference between Ministry compensation and market value of slaughtered cattle plus, where required, an amount to cover consequential losses. The fact that farmers had the option of obtaining insurance to 'meet the difference between the compensation paid and the market value' was referred to in a response by the Government to a call for an increase in the level of compensation payable. ⁴³

2.116 The availability of this insurance cover suggests that not all farmers were content with compensation fixed at 50 per cent. It also demonstrates that farmers could recoup any losses they made because of BSE and the slaughter and compensation policy. Some farmers may have found it simpler and less precarious to insure against the risk. The Inquiry heard evidence that the policy later became unavailable as BSE cases became more widespread. ⁴⁴