Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
4. Human health developments:January - December 1990
General aspects of the SBO ban in 1990
Additional requirements introduced by the SBO ban
Extent to which the SBO ban was monitored during 1990
General concerns about, and guidance on, practical application of the SBO Regulations
Guidance on the SBO Regulations

Additional requirements introduced by the SBO ban

4.101 The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations ¹ prohibited the sale or use in the preparation of food for sale for human consumption of 'specified bovine offal'. ² Specified bovine offal (SBO)was defined in the Regulations as being the brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestines of a bovine animal slaughtered in the UK. ³ However, the Regulations did not apply to SBO of a calf not more than 6 months old when slaughtered. ⁴

4.102 To effect the separation of SBO from meat intended for human consumption at the slaughterhouse, the Regulations utilised as a blue print the regime established under the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982 (MSSR) for the separation of unfit meat from meat fit for human consumption. These Regulations are described in detail in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health.

4.103 Thus, a parallel regime was introduced under the SBO Regulations whereby SBO at a slaughterhouse was required to be 'immediately' sterilised (or placed in a designated place for meat awaiting sterilisation and with a notice attached that the contents are for later sterilisation at the slaughterhouse). ⁵ However, the requirement to sterilise SBO did not apply if they were stained immediately after slaughter. ⁶ 'Sterilisation' and 'staining' were defined by reference to the definitions in MSSR. This meant that SBO would be stained with the same stains as unfit meat.

4.104 The Regulations contained an express provision whereby it was made clear that the severance of SBO from non-SBO material, which was not to be sterilised or stained, was permissible under the Regulations. In consequence, things to be done 'immediately' under regulation 5 were to be taken to be so done where any delay was attributable solely to such severance. ⁷ Once severance of the SBO had been effected, meat fit for human consumption could not be stored in the same room as SBO unless the SBO had been either sterilised or stained and was stored under an arrangement that ensured that it was at all times kept separate from fit meat. In addition, the container or packing in which any SBO was stored was required to bear a clear notice stating that the SBO held in that container was not for human consumption. ⁸

4.105 Sterilised SBO could be removed from the slaughterhouse without restriction. ⁹ By contrast, unsterilised SBO could be removed from the slaughterhouse to one of only three specified destinations, and only under the authority of a movement permit. These destinations were as follows:

1. Excepted premises;
2. The premises of a processor for sterilisation;
3. The premises of a person for preparation prior to further removal to a processor, or for storage prior for further removal to one of the above two destinations. ¹⁰

4.106 With one exception, this removal could not be effected unless the SBO was both stained and to be removed in a vehicle or impervious container which was locked or sealed at all times and which bore a notice affixed by the occupier of the slaughterhouse clearly stating that the SBO therein was not for human consumption.

4.107 The exception was in the case of 'excepted premises'. These 'excepted premises' were defined in the Regulations as: ¹¹

1. A hospital, medical or veterinary school, laboratory or similar institution for instructional or diagnostic purposes, a rennet manufacturer or a manufacturing chemist for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products;
2. Premises used for the manufacture of products other than food and not used for the manufacture of food.

4.108 SBOs could be removed to 'excepted premises' neither sterilised nor stained provided the removal was carried out under the authority of a movement permit. ¹² This provision mirrors a similar exception in the MSSR, whereby the removal of unfit meat to laboratories, manufacturing chemists and the like could be carried out without material being sterilised or stained.

4.109 However, the scope of the exception was considerably wider in the SBO Regulations, as it included removal of SBO to any manufacturers of non-food products. In particular, under the Food Act 'food' was to be interpreted as not including animal feedstuffs. ¹³ Consequently, the exemption included within its scope removal of SBO to manufacturers of animal feedstuffs. In practice, however, those involved seem to have assumed that SBO going from a slaughterhouse to a renderer would need to be stained. ¹⁴

4.110 Knackers' yards were not covered by the SBO Regulations. The requirements as to sterilisation and staining of SBO applied only to the slaughterhouse. The prohibition on removal of SBO did not apply to removal from a knacker's yard. ¹⁵ Thus, by contrast with the MSSR, the regime introduced by the SBO Regulations left knackers' yards untouched. This was because all knacker meat was presumed to be unfit under the MSSR. ¹⁶

4.111 The removal of unsterilised SBO was controlled by a system of movement permits. ¹⁷ This system was identical in every respect to that which applied under the MSSR for controlling the removal of unfit meat, save that the material covered by the permit was SBO and the form of the permit reflected this.

4.112 The monitoring of this system of movement permits was in the hands of the local authority that controlled their issue. To acquire a permit, at least two working days before it was intended to remove SBO from the premises the occupier of the premises had to apply to the local authority giving the following information:

1. the intended removal date;
2. the description of the SBO;
3. the address and description of the premises to which the SBO was to be delivered; and
4. the expected date of arrival of the SBO at those premises. ¹⁸

4.113 Upon receipt of an application the local authority was required, without undue delay, to satisfy itself that the premises to which it was intended to deliver the SBO were premises of a kind referred to in regulation 11(1) and were capable of processing or otherwise disposing of the SBO. If the premises were situated in the district of another local authority, the authority to whom the application was made was required to notify that other authority that the application had been made, and was required to take into account any information obtained from that authority in reaching its decision as to the nature of the premises. ¹⁹

4.114 When the occupier of any premises to which the regulation applied regularly delivered SBO of a specific description to a particular destination, the authority in whose district the premises or SBO was situated was required, on application being made to it stating the description of that SBO and the address and description of that destination, to authorise in advance each such movement by issuing such quantity of movement permits as it considered appropriate. ²⁰

4.115 As regulations made under the Food Act 1984, the SBO Regulations were enforceable by means of the blanket power given to authorised officers of the local authority to enter any premises at a reasonable hour for the purpose of ascertaining whether any contravention of the Regulations had taken place. ²¹ However, by contrast to the MSSR, the SBO Regulations did not confer upon authorised officers any additional powers to examine and seize SBO with a view to securing its condemnation where it had not been dealt with in accordance with the Regulations. ²²

4.116 It should be noted that the Regulations contained certain exemptions. ²³ First, the Regulations did not apply at all to SBO from a calf not more than six months old when slaughtered. Second, the requirements as to sterilisation, staining and removal did not apply to two specified categories of SBO: ²⁴

1. SBO removed by a veterinary surgeon for examination; and
2. SBO 'which is neither held for the purposes of a business nor on premises on which the bovine animal whose offal it is has been slaughtered'.

Extent to which the SBO ban was monitored during 1990

4.117 During 1990 the SVS did not issue any specific instructions to its staff in relation to undertaking surveillance of the extent to which slaughterhouses were complying with 1989 SBO Regulations until 12 November 1990. ²⁵ On that day, Mr Keith Baker, the Assistant CVO, sent a request to DVOs seeking information - to be submitted to SVS HQ on a one-off basis by 17 December 1990 - on how slaughterhouses were handling SBO. ²⁶ The submission date was later extended to 11 January 1991. ²⁷ The reports were submitted in varying formats and detail, and were considered of limited value to SVS HQ, leading to a request from Mr Iain Crawford (Director of Veterinary Field Service, MAFF) to Regional Veterinary Officers (RVOs) on 18 January 1991, for the information to be re-submitted on pro-formas. ²⁸ Details on the results of this request are given in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96.

4.118 In the second main section of this chapter we examine the monitoring of removal of the spinal cord from bovine carcasses.

General concerns about, and guidance on, practical application of the SBO Regulations

4.119 In the first two main sections of this chapter we shall describe and discuss practical concerns raised about, first, brain removal and, second, slaughterhouse practices and MRM. Before doing so, we look at the general concerns raised by the IEHO ²⁹ and MAFF's response to their concerns. (The IEHO's concerns on brain removal are covered in more detail later in paragraph 4.163). We also look at MAFF's policy on issuing guidance to local authorities about the SBO Regulations and their enforcement.

Concerns expressed by EHOs

4.120 On this topic we need to step back to the last two months of 1989. In late November 1989, after the SBO Regulations came into force, an EHO from Carrick District Council in Cornwall contacted Ms Bronwen Jones of the Meat Hygiene Division in MAFF. He voiced concerns about the danger of head-splitting practices contaminating meat for human consumption. Ms Jones suggested to the EHO that he write to her with his concerns, preferably channelled through the IEHO. ³⁰

4.121 Ms Jones told Mr John Maslin of the Animal Health Division about the conversation, and asked for his view on whether amendments to the Regulations were needed. She commented that:

My own reaction to this is that we have never attempted to, nor can we, ensure that all of the risks from this material (minimal though they are) are eliminated. I should have thought that the removal of brain and other specified offal by whatever means carries some unavoidable risk of cross-contamination. ³¹

4.122 Mr Maslin discussed the issue with Mr Kevin Taylor and subsequently informed Ms Jones that:

On the splitting of heads, or spinal columns, we agree with your reaction. Some contamination is bound to occur but we have already gone further than Southwood suggested in tackling an already remote risk from offals. Through the prohibition we have taken all practical steps and an amendment to the Regulations is neither necessary nor practical. ³²

4.123 Other EHOs raised similar concerns about the SBO ban in late 1989. In response to a suggestion by MAFF, Mr Mike Corbally of the IEHO wrote to all Chief EHOs in local authorities on 11 December, seeking comments and observations about the SBO Regulations. In his letter he stated:

Since their introduction the Institution has received a number of comments and enquiries relating to the short notice of the date on which they were to be implemented and practical difficulties of both compliance and enforcement. Where appropriate these have been forwarded to MAFF for clarification.

It has now been suggested by the Ministry that it would be beneficial if the Institution could establish the effectiveness of the regulations and any difficulties experienced in their enforcement. I would be most grateful therefore to receive any comments/observations you may have on any aspect of the regulations in order that we can formulate a comprehensive report for the Ministry. ³³

4.124 On 1 February 1990, following receipt of comments from Chief EHOs, Mr Corbally wrote to Mrs Clare Goodson, Animal Health Division of MAFF, regarding the difficulties EHOs were experiencing in the interpretation of, compliance with and enforcement of, the SBO Regulations. ³⁴ Mr Corbally noted that although initially most comments and enquiries the IEHO had received related to interpretation, they subsequently related to practical problems being encountered in enforcement and ensuring the public were protected. ³⁵ He went on to describe the IEHO's comments and observations:

1. Timing of Implementation: the speed with which the SBO ban had been implemented meant that some slaughterhouses and local Environmental Health Departments (EHDs) were not aware of the Regulations when they were implemented, and had not received copies of them until after the ban had come into force;
2. Interpretation: certain aspects of the regulations had proved to be illogical, taking little account of meat inspection procedures. Local EHDs contacting MAFF for advice were told 'you are the enforcing authority, you interpret the Regulations and enforce them as per that interpretation'. ³⁶ Concern was expressed that this lack of guidance would lead to differing interpretations and standards of enforcement;
3. Specific concerns: points made regarding practical difficulties being encountered included:
• Fragmentation of the spinal cord often occurred when the carcass was split. This not only contaminated the meat, but also meant the spinal cord could not be effectively removed in accordance with the Regulations. ³⁷

4.125 The IEHO concluded that some of the new regulations appeared to be 'impractical and unenforceable' and sought a meeting with MAFF to facilitate their effective working in practice. The IEHO issued a press release making public their concerns the same day. ³⁸

4.126 On 9 February 1990, Mr I Holmes, the Chief Environmental and Community Services Officer for Carrick District Council, wrote to Mr Gummer to query his recent public statements that there was no risk of BSE transmitting to humans. Mr Holmes wrote that he presumed that Mr Gummer believed the SBO Regulations were providing adequate controls and safeguards. He asserted that this was in fact 'far from the case', and that the Minister should already have been informed of many concerns by the IEHO; furthermore, he wrote: 'we have already demonstrated our concerns to you with regard to head-splitting'. He concluded:

However, in the light of your public statements . . . that there is now considered to be no risk that BSE infected material may infect humans, I wish to seek your answer as to why the above-mentioned Regulations therefore remain in place, and why local authorities must continue to attempt enforcement when in practice, the Regulations are both unreliable and in parts, unworkable. ³⁹

4.127 Ms Jones responded on behalf of Mr Gummer on 18 May 1990. She noted that the Regulations were designed to deal with the remote risk that BSE-infected cows might avoid the slaughter policy and enter the human food chain. She continued:

Independent experts have already assessed the risk to humans from BSE as remote. When results of investigations into the nature and transmissibility of the disease are available it will be possible to make a fuller appraisal of any risk, but in the meantime, the offals ban ensures that those parts of the animal which the BSE agent is most likely to be present do not enter the human food chain. ⁴⁰

Meeting with IEHO

4.128 On 9 April 1990, MAFF officials, headed by Mr K Baker, ACVO, met with Mr Corbally. ⁴¹ MAFF acknowledged that the timescale for the introduction of the Regulations had been unusually short because of public health and awareness considerations, and that this may have led to some enforcement difficulties. The note of the meeting records that there were a number of points were made in response to the IEHO's concerns, including:

1. The main nerves of the carcass were not considered a risk by specialist advisers, and in practice were difficult to remove. ⁴²

4.129 A few days after the meeting, on 18 April, Mr Corbally wrote to Mr K Baker to thank him for the 'informative and worthwhile discussion'. However, he noted there were still points of concern, and said he would be obliged to receive comment on the following:

Although the Ministry consider that the implementation of the Regulation is a prudent measure, minimising still further a risk that is believed to be very small, if not insignificant (according to current knowledge), do you consider that the continued use of mechanically recovered meat from bovines is acceptable? I recall that during our discussion on the subject of removing the spinal cord you felt that the requirements had to provide a reasonable balance. That is, while removal of the major parts of the spinal cord should be performed it was not considered necessary, nor indeed practical to remove fragments of the major nerves. However, MRM could contain significant quantities of spinal cord nervous tissue. ⁴³

4.130 During oral evidence, Mr K Baker stated that he could not recall what his response was to this letter, though he suggested he would have sought advice from others. However, Mr Baker could not recall to whom he might have referred it. ⁴⁴

Guidance on the SBO Regulations

4.131 As described in Chapter 3, when the SBO Regulations were made in November 1989, MAFF wrote to local authorities, and their associations, enclosing a copy of the new Regulations. MAFF did not issue any guidance to accompany them but instead the covering letter advised that 'if you require any further information or technical advice concerning these regulations, please contact the Veterinary Service at your local MAFF Divisional Office.' ⁴⁵ As mentioned in the previous section, the IEHO considered that this lack of guidance led to problems of interpretation and different standards of enforcement between local authorities.

4.132 The question of whether to issue guidance to accompany the SBO Regulations was raised within MAFF following a minute from Mr T P Foster of the Animal Health Division on 31 January 1990. The minute informed Mr Meldrum and other MAFF officials of an impending European Commission 'Mission' to the UK. Mr Foster said the Mission would look at red meat plants and would want to see how the SBO ban was working in practice, how it was policed, and what steps were taken to ensure that specified offal was not exported. ⁴⁶ Mr Meldrum responded that 'we must ensure that our arrangements for specified offals stand up to detailed scrutiny', and asked whether advice to local authorities was clear. ⁴⁷

4.133 Mr K Baker noted on Mr Foster's minute, for Mr Meldrum's benefit, that:

We have not issued any instruction over and above the usual requirements of the Sterilisation and Staining Regs. ⁴⁸ On receipt of the above minute I passed instructions to Messrs Walker and Hutchins to ensure that RMHAs, VOs (MH) and OVSs were aware that the above aspects would be looked at during the visit to plants. ⁴⁹

4.134 In turn, Mr Meldrum asked Mr K Baker, 'Would it not be wise to draft instructions to Local Authorities on the implementation of the BSE Sterilisation and Staining Regulations ⁵⁰ or are our current instructions quite clear?' ⁵¹ Mr K Baker replied:

The last guidance note (FSH Circular) was sent out when the Sterilisation and Staining Regs were amended in 1984. No problems have come to our attention in implementing the Regulations. If we go out to Local Authorities offering guidance it might be wise to cover a number of topics rather than BSE alone as this will raise its profile yet again. Perhaps 'unfit meat' could be covered as well . . . Any guidance might also have to cover brain removal, spinal cord, major nerve tissue and lymph node and MRM as these have come up as BSE related topics. I suggest our approach to these needs careful consideration and probably a round table discussion. ⁵²

4.135 Mrs Attridge forwarded these comments to Mr Robert Lowson, Head of Animal Health Division, MAFF, with a short note saying:

I would welcome your views on presentation. We need to be sure Local Authorities are enforcing the Regulations. The split between divisions is awkward. ⁵³

4.136 By this time MAFF had been sent Mr Corbally's letter describing difficulties encountered by EHOs (see paragraph 4.123). On 19 February 1990, Ms Bronwen Jones sent a minute to Mr Meldrum at the request of Mr Griffiths, attaching a draft minute for him to send to the Permanent Secretary explaining the background and current position on advice on the SBO Regulations. ⁵⁴ In the draft minute the following appeared:

1. The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations came into force on 13 November 1989. Copies were sent to Chief Environmental Health Officers in District Councils in England and Wales. No advice on their application was issued at the time because it was felt that the Regulations were clear and that since the provisions followed closely those for dealing with unfit meat they would therefore be largely familiar to enforcement authorities.

4.137 The draft then referred to concerns which had been raised by Carrick District Council regarding head-splitting, and to the study carried out by the SVS on brain removal techniques. We look at these aspects in the first main section of this chapter. The draft continued:

3. It is now our intention to circulate immediate advice based on this study to RMHAs. This will be followed up by more formal guidance to local authorities on this and any other matters of concern to them on the offal ban after officials have met the Institute of Environmental Health Officers to discuss the Regulations (currently being arranged at their request) . . .

4.138 At the top of Ms Jones's covering minute, Mr Meldrum appears to have written the words, 'Not pursued', with the date '27.2'.

4.139 We have noted in paragraphs 4.126-4.127 the meeting on 9 April 1990 between Mr Baker and Mr Corbally of the IEHO to discuss concerns about the SBO Regulations, ⁵⁵ followed up by Mr Corbally's letter of 18 April. ⁵⁶

4.140 On 2 May 1990, Mr Griffiths minuted the Private Secretary to Mr David Maclean. ⁵⁷ We return to this minute in the first main section of this chapter. Here we note that Mr Griffiths said that he, Mr Meldrum and Mrs Attridge recommended that the Government should not introduce legislation to ban the removal of brain before head meat, but that it should 'rest on guidance to LAs'. He also said in his minute that the amendment regulations would 'fuel debate on BSE generally and, inevitably, lead to demands for similar action on spinal cords'.

4.141 We noted in paragraph 4.127 that on 18 May 1990, Ms Bronwen Jones wrote to Mr Holmes of Carrick District Council in response to concerns that he had raised about the SBO Regulations. ⁵⁸ So far as guidance is concerned, we observe here that in her letter she said:

Liaison with [IEHO] is maintained in all aspects of the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 with a view to ensuring that the controls provided for work as smoothly and effectively as possible . . . We have recently discussed their operation with IEHO and invited any suggestion for improved controls.

4.142 On 21 May 1990, Mr Griffiths of the Meat Hygiene Division provided for Mr Gummer the briefing note we mentioned at paragraph 4.87 on inspection at slaughterhouses. He referred specifically to SBOs:

Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Bovine Offals (Prohibition) Regulations are observed. The Ministry has been offering advice, where requested, to individual local authorities on the regulations and on good practice in observing them. ⁵⁹

4.143 He concluded that the 'line to take' should be:

LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOVINE OFFALS (PROHIBITION) REGULATIONS ARE OBSERVED STRICTLY. THE MINISTRY IS READY TO GIVE ADVICE IF NEEDED AND WE ARE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF GUIDANCE. ⁶⁰

4.144 In a Q&A brief for the Parliamentary debate on BSE on 21 May 1990, the following draft answers appeared: ⁶¹

CHAPTER IV - OFFAL BAN

. . .

9. WHY HAS NO GUIDANCE BEEN ISSUED?

THE REGULATIONS ARE QUITE CLEAR AS TO WHAT MUST BE DONE WITH SPECIFIED BOVINE OFFAL. WHERE ADVICE HAS BEEN REQUESTED MAFF STAFF HAVE PROVIDED IT: IN ONE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT AREA (THE REMOVAL OF BRAINS) WE HAVE RESPONDED BY CARRYING OUT OUR OWN RESEARCH. WE CONCLUDED THAT ADVICE WAS NEEDED AND GUIDELINES ARE AT PRESENT BEING CLEARED WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS. THE REGULATIONS ARE BEING KEPT UNDER REVIEW TO SEE IF FURTHER CLARIFICATION OR ADVICE IS NEEDED.

. . .

CHAPTER V SLAUGHTERHOUSE PRACTICES

. . .

2. WHAT IS MAFF'S ROLE?

THE DUTY TO ENFORCE THESE REGULATIONS LIES WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES. MAFF OFFICERS VISIT EC EXPORT APPROVED SLAUGHTERHOUSES ONCE A MONTH TO MONITOR STANDARDS IN RELATION TO THEIR EXPORT APPROVED STATUS. OTHER SLAUGHTERHOUSES ARE VISITED ANNUALLY TO GIVE ADVICE ON STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL AND TREATMENT OF SPECIFIED BOVINE OFFAL, AND A REPORT IS SENT TO THE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

. . .

4. DOES THE VERTICAL SPLITTING OF CARCASSES (I.E. ALONG THE SPINAL CORD) PRESENT A RISK?

VETERINARY ADVICE IS THAT REMOVAL OF THE SPINAL CORD FROM BOVINE CARCASSES MAY BE CARRIED OUT IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER. ANY TRANSFERENCE OF SPINAL MATERIAL TO MEAT CAN BE MINIMISED BY EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND OBSERVANCE OF ESTABLISHED HYGIENE RULES.

5. WHY NOT BAN MRM FROM HUMAN CONSUMPTION?

NOT NECESSARY. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE SPINAL CORD AND OTHER SPECIFIED OFFALS MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE THE CARCASS LEAVES THE ABATTOIR. THE CARCASSES AND BONES USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF MECHANICALLY RECOVERED MEAT WILL NOT THEREFORE CONTAIN ANY SPECIFIED BOVINE OFFAL.

4.145 During the House of Commons debate Mr Gummer undertook to refer the question of slaughterhouse practices to SEAC. This led to the preparation of the SEAC paper and SEAC's advice of November 1990.

4.146 Guidance was subsequently issued by MAFF to local authorities in relation to brain removal, as we shall see later in this chapter.

4.147 On 21 June 1990, Mr Alan Bremner, the Superintending Meat Hygiene Adviser (SMHA), sent a telex to all RMHAs. After dealing with guidance issued on EC export requirements relating to the removal of lymphatic tissue (our third main section below) the telex continued:

They should also ensure full compliance with the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 at all slaughterhouses and cutting rooms that they visit. These Regulations should be added to the other Regulations listed at paragraph 10 of the MHI and reported on accordingly.

Will you please send a report to Mr Walker, SMHA, at the end of each month starting at the end of June on the standards of compliance found during the VO visits. ⁶²

4.148 The first paragraph of this related to EC export requirements, including the removal of all obvious nervous and lymphatic tissues. Although the telex appears to have been prompted by concerns about MRM ⁶³, no mention was made of spinal cord.

4.149 Two other sets of guidance were issued during 1990 in relation to the SBO Regulations. The first set was on the safe handling of SBOs, issued in March 1990 to the slaughterhouse and meat preparation industries. ⁶⁴ This guidance was prepared by HSE in collaboration with MAFF and DH. The second set was on the movement and disposal restrictions that applied to SBOs (and other unfit meat) issued by MAFF in June 1990 to local authority waste disposal operators. ⁶⁵

4.150 In the following sections we explore the consideration given to these various concerns and the actions taken in consequence of them. Separate sections are dedicated to brain removal and to other slaughterhouse practices, and their implications for MRM.