Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
4. Human health developments:January - December 1990
Concerns during 1990 about brain removal
Introduction
Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 (the 1989 SBO Regulations)
The effect of the 1989 Regulations on the treatment of bovine heads
IEHO concerns about brain removal
Views of OVSs about possible contamination of head meat by bovine brain
MAFF officials' advice
Ministerial involvement
Mr Maclean expresses his view on head-splitting
Development of guidance note on brain removal for local authorities
Meeting with IEHO
Ministers' reservations allayed
Further concerns expressed
Parliamentary debate on Government's handling of BSE
Action taken following the debate
Agriculture Committee Inquiry into BSE: consideration of brain removal
Government's response to the Select Committee recommendation
Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992
Discussion

Introduction

4.151 Although brains were on rare occasions removed from the head in slaughterhouses prior to the introduction of the SBO ban, this was more likely to be done after the head meat had been harvested, rather than before (see vol. 13: Industry Processes and Controls). As will be explained in this section, the introduction of the SBO ban encouraged slaughterhouses to remove brain prior to the harvesting of head meat, which brought with it the risk of cross-contamination of meat destined for human food.

4.152 Methods employed to remove brains from bovine heads are discussed in detail in vol. 13: Industry Processes and Controls. However, it is useful to describe briefly here the methods under consideration throughout the period covered by this chapter:

1. Oblique cut through the rear of the skull by an electric or manual saw: This method opened the skull, so that the brain generally retained its structure and then could be 'shelled out';
2. Splitting the skull with a band saw: After head meat had been removed the skull was split using a band saw, bisecting the brain;
3. Splitting the skull with a specialised tool: The Inquiry heard evidence that special tools were available to split heads;
4. Splitting the skull with a hand-held cleaver: There is some doubt whether this method was effective, and it was not widespread in practice;
5. Expulsion of the brain by a jet of water or air: This involved introducing the jet via the captive bolt hole, so that the brain was expelled via the cavity at the base of the skull; and
6. Suction of the brain: This was done through the hole made by the captive bolt.

Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 (the 1989 SBO Regulations)

4.153 Bovine brain was designated as SBO, and thus fell within the Regulations' requirement for immediate staining and sterilisation. However, this did not apply to a brain that was still within a head that was going to be removed from the slaughterhouse to a specialist boning plant for the recovery of meat (other than SBO).

4.154 After removing the meat the head-boning plants had either to:

1. sterilise or stain the skull (with the brain still inside); or
2. remove the brain from the skull and then sterilise or stain the brain. ¹

4.155 The definition of 'specialist boning plant' in the 1989 Regulations was limited to premises (not being a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard) where a business of removing meat was carried on. This also excluded the premises of retail butchers.

4.156 Although the 1989 Regulations referred to removal of the brain from the skull, they were silent as to how this was to be achieved. No other instruction or guidance was provided to slaughterhouses or boning plants on the appropriate method of brain removal. The removal of the brain could be performed:

1. at the slaughterhouse, before or after the removal of the head meat by the slaughterhouse;
2. at the slaughterhouse, prior to sending the head to a specialist boning plant or butcher for removal of the head meat; or
3. at the specialist boning plant, before or after the removal of the head meat by the plant.

The effect of the 1989 Regulations on the treatment of bovine heads

4.157 The 1989 Regulations introduced a commercial incentive to remove the brain from the skull. Although brain was SBO, the rest of the head was not. However, with the brain, the entire head had to be treated as SBO. Renderers were not prepared to pay for SBO. In these circumstances slaughterhouses and specialist boning plants faced the prospect of paying renderers to collect heads rather than receiving income for them. ²

4.158 This prospect stimulated the practice of brain removal. As the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons put it:

This practice was accentuated by the introduction of the specified offals ban: abattoirs perceived an economic advantage in attempting to remove the brain from the skull since, by removing the brain, they would have to pay renderers less to take the heads. ³

4.159 Removal of the brain at the slaughterhouse also made the head a more commercially attractive proposition for boning plants, which did not have to deal with the disposal of any SBO.

4.160 Some butchers sent cattle for slaughter on terms that the carcass, including the head, would be returned to them. ⁴ Butchers were not 'specialist boning plants' for the purposes of the 1989 Regulations. ⁵ As a consequence, bovine heads could not be returned to butchers unless the brain was removed first, and some slaughterhouses began to remove the brain. ⁶ The practice of bovine brain removal is discussed in vol. 13: Industry Processes and Controls. The economic impact of brain removal is discussed in vol.10: Economic Impact and International Trade.

4.161 In June 1990, the carcass classification and certification staff of the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) surveyed 309 slaughterhouses, accounting for 90 per cent of the cattle slaughtered in Great Britain, to examine the handling of bovine heads. ⁷

4.162 The MLC staff found that in 81 per cent of slaughterhouses the head was despatched 'untouched', and of the remainder the majority removed only the cheek meat from the heads, leaving the brain in the skull to be sent out as proscribed offal. In only 33 slaughterhouses - 10.7 per cent of those surveyed, accounting for less than 4 per cent of British cattle slaughtering - was removal of the brain from the head of carcasses attempted. ⁸ This survey did not, however, take account of the incidence of head splitting at the specialist head-boning plants to which presumably the 81 per cent of heads were dispatched 'untouched'.

IEHO concerns about brain removal

4.163 Shortly after the SBO Regulations came into force, MAFF became aware of the IEHO's general concerns about the practical implementation of the Regulations, as discussed in paragraphs 4.119-4.130. Issues regarding the contamination of meat for human consumption by brain removal practices were drawn to MAFF's attention at the same time:

Prior to these Regulations bovine heads were often transported to butchers for removal of cheek meat. Under these Regulations, in order to safeguard public health, even after removal of certain SBO the heads cannot be removed from the slaughterhouse for the purposes of recovering meat whilst the brain is still contained within the head except where it is to be removed to a specialist boning plant under a movement permit.

We are aware of a number of practices circumventing this restriction whereby the brain is removed for staining or sterilisation thereby allowing free movement of the head. Furthermore, the practice of removing the brain from the skull appears to be a necessary one for many small slaughterhouses who undertake contract killing on behalf of butchers who demand the return of the bovine head. The fact that many abattoirs are not geared up for this operation has resulted in a number of, what the Institution believe to be, unsatisfactory practices and which, until we became aware of a Ministry letter to Carrick District Council on this subject, we were sure the Ministry would not themselves condone. These practices include:

The splitting of the head with cleavers;

The use of bandsaws to split the heads;

The use of low pressure hose jets;

Removal of brain through the stun hole by suction.

Not only do the first two practices involve significant health and safety implications, none of the four can guarantee the effective removal of the brain, without the result of contamination of the head.

In order to prevent these practices and ensure that any risk of contamination is kept to a minimum, the Institution considers that the removal of the brain should be prohibited. It could be argued that the most satisfactory method of maintaining public safety and the means by which the dual standard for the brain can be removed is to stipulate that all head meat (tongue, cheek) can only be removed at the slaughterhouse, where the process can be controlled effectively, after which time the head should be stained or sterilised and disposed of as with other SBO. ⁹

Views of OVSs about possible contamination of head meat by bovine brain

4.164 The Inquiry heard evidence from veterinarians who worked as OVSs at slaughterhouses about the possible contamination of head meat by bovine brain during transport of heads to head-boning plants or butchers. In particular, brain material could leak through the captive bolthole in the skull onto the head meat. One veterinarian told us:

The leaking of brain material through the stunning hole was quite evident at this, when this process was being done . . . It was quite obvious, we both observed this at the time, that brain material was leaking onto the cheek meat that was then going to be recovered for human consumption at the boning plant. ¹⁰

4.165 We also heard evidence of heads being transported with other meat, raising concerns about possible contamination of this meat in transit. Another veterinarian told us:

The heads were taken away for further processing from our abattoir. I think the only problem that worried me about it was the contamination of those heads with other meat shipped at the same time, and also contamination from the captive bolt hole in the head as well, the contents would come out of the hole. I tried to be very strict in the way they were transported, those heads, but unfortunately you were not always able to supervise it. ¹¹

MAFF officials' advice

4.166 In January 1990, Mr Matthew Taylor, the Liberal Democrat MP for Truro, sought a meeting with Mr Gummer to discuss brain removal. This had been stimulated by the concerns expressed by the EHO from Carrick District Council (see paragraph 4.120). Mr Gummer sought advice from his officials.

4.167 Mr Lowson advised that the Regulations did not encourage brain removal, but said: 'There may be commercial reasons why slaughterhouse operators have adopted this method of removing brains'. He also acknowledged that if care was not exercised when removing brains there was 'a possibility' that brain tissue might be transferred to head meat, but said that there were techniques available which minimised this. Therefore, there was 'no reason to prohibit the use of head meat from animals whose skulls have been opened'. He stated that the concerns raised ignored the important point that the offal ban was a precautionary measure. It was aimed at the very few cattle, if any, that had eluded the monitoring arrangements or had yet to exhibit clinical signs. In subclinical cases the agent was not usually found in the brain until the later stages, so, 'even putting aside the fact that the risk for humans from BSE is remote, the risk from contamination of head meat by brain tissue must be almost negligible'. ¹²

4.168 To help assess the validity of the complaints being received, in early February Mr Stephen Hutchins, SVO, Red Meat Hygiene Division, MAFF, ¹³ visited selected abattoirs to review brain removal methods. His report to Mr Keith Baker concluded that the 'very small amounts of a bone paste that would have included traces of brain tissue' produced by three different methods of sawing through the head and brain might be transferred to cheek meat, 'but only in tiny quantities'. An alternative method involving the use of water and air jets posed 'some risk' of contamination and 'represented the least hygienic method witnessed'. However, he saw no reason for prohibiting the 'open-skull' methods provided saws and work surfaces were adequately cleaned down between heads. ¹⁴

4.169 In a statement to the Inquiry Mr Meldrum said that he was happy to accept Mr Hutchins's advice. On 13 February 1990, he asked Mr K Baker to include advice on the removal of bovine brain in a Food Safety and Hygiene circular. He felt that MAFF should not 'delay too long in offering advice to local authorities on brain removal'. ¹⁵ Thereafter, as noted at paragraph 4.136-4.138 above, a draft minute to the Permanent Secretary was prepared, but this appears not to have been pursued.

Ministerial involvement

4.170 Mr Gummer met with Mr Matthew Taylor on 15 February 1990, and 'undertook to organise a review of the contrasting arguments put forward by the EHOs and the SVS'. He would 'invite a suitable outside expert to advise him'. ¹⁶

4.171 Mrs Attridge was given responsibility for the preparation of the review. In a minute to Mr Gummer's Private Secretary, she suggested that 'unless the Minister made a specific point of an "outside" expert', Mr Hutchins's report should be sent to Mr Taylor. ¹⁷

4.172 Mr Gummer first received a copy of Mr Hutchins's report on 23 February 1990, under cover of a minute from Mr Derek Andrews. Mr Andrews noted that Mr Gummer had queried why the cheek meat could not be removed before the splitting of bovine heads and said:

There is nothing in the regulations to prevent head splitting at the slaughterhouse which seems to be a fairly widespread practice in the South-West. If we were to amend the regulations to prohibit this, it would be likely to simply shift the argument from the splitting of heads to the splitting of spines where the same sort of issues could be raised. ¹⁸

4.173 Regarding Mr Gummer's request for advice from an outside expert, Mr Andrews suggested that Dr David Tyrrell, Chairman of SEAC, was not 'necessarily an appropriate person to provide expert judgement on butchery practices', and recommended Mr A M Johnston, senior lecturer at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

4.174 Mr Gummer agreed to this, ¹⁹ and Mr Meldrum wrote to Mr Johnston on 1 March 1990 enclosing Mr Hutchins' report. He asked whether Mr Johnston 'could let us, as an independent expert, have your assessment of this report'. ²⁰

4.175 Mr Johnston sent his report to Mr Meldrum on 7 March 1990. This expressed reservations with all the methods identified in Mr Hutchins's report, especially the high-pressure water/air method: 'I am convinced that this method is not acceptable if contamination of the meat on heads is to be avoided'. He concluded that 'whenever possible, meat intended for human consumption should be removed before any saw cut which enters the cranium is made'. ²¹

Mr Maclean expresses his view on head-splitting

4.176 On 15 March 1990 the views of the Food Safety Minister, Mr David Maclean, on the issue were communicated to Mr Lowson. Mr Maclean felt that:

[T]here appears to be an obvious weakness in that although we say that head meat can, in theory, be removed safely by a slaughterhouse operative using a saw, it is very difficult to convince the public that the meat spattered with brains is perfectly safe if wiped down. ²²

4.177 Mr Maclean's conclusion was that it was 'rather a vulnerable point which might not be worth defending merely to retrieve some small quantities of head meat'. ²³ In his statement to the Inquiry, Mr Maclean emphasised that he had been told the risks were remote, since the animals concerned were healthy, but he 'wanted to make sure officials were following up every aspect of the matter fully'. ²⁴

4.178 In response to Mr Maclean's view, Mrs Attridge provided estimates of the annual worth of head meat. Cheek meat was valued at £6.8 million annually, and tongue £17 million. She noted that the only difficulty posed was when the head was sent to a boning plant after the brain had been removed, upon which specific advice was being given. She therefore hoped 'that we will be able to continue with the retrieval of head meat and tongue provided that the methods used present no risk'. ²⁵

Development of guidance note on brain removal for local authorities

4.179 On 29 March 1990 Ms Jones distributed a first draft of a guidance note to local authorities on head-splitting, which was intended to take into account Mr Hutchins's and Mr Johnston's reports. The note explained that:

Brains may be removed at the slaughterhouse, in which case there are no further requirements in the Regulations governing the removal of head meat. Concern has been expressed that the practice of removing brains before the head meat is removed gives rise to the risk of cross-contamination of that meat with brain tissue. Since the brain tissue in question is from healthy animals, it follows that the risk is in any case negligible. ²⁶

4.180 However, the guidance included the following principles which, if followed, 'will ensure that any transfer of brain tissue to meat is kept to an absolute minimum':

Where possible head meat intended for human consumption should be cut from the skull before any cut is made into the skull to remove the brain.

Where this is not possible, heads should be opened in such a manner that the possibility of brain tissue being spread to meat is kept to an absolute minimum.

It is recommended that the removal of the brain should take place within 24 hours of slaughter. Where this is not possible skulls should be stored prior to opening under chilled conditions. ²⁷

4.181 The guidance also included 'recommended techniques':

The preferred technique for opening the skull prior to brain removal is an oblique cut through the skull with a reciprocating saw, from a line immediately anterior to the normal site of the captive bolt hole (but avoiding the hole itself) to a line immediately above the foramen magnum. This will allow the easy removal of the brain without exposing meat to the possibility of contact with the minimum amounts of brain tissue that might escape from the skull during the sawing operations.

If this method of removal is unavailable the skull may be split along the middle of the head of the median plane with a band saw. Before this technique is employed, all the meat from around the area of the hyoid bones and the base of the skull should be removed.

Methods involving the use of high pressure water jets to remove brain tissue from otherwise intact skulls are not recommended in view of the amount of splashing of brain tissue and water that occurs. ²⁸

4.182 Ms Jones forwarded the draft guidance to Mr Maclean on 4 April 1990. ²⁹

Meeting with IEHO

4.183 The IEHO's opposition to head-splitting was discussed during its meeting with MAFF officials on 9 April 1990 (see paragraph 4.128). However, MAFF officials explained that veterinary studies of methods used indicated the operation could be performed safely if some basic principles were followed. They said guidance on those principles was being prepared. ³⁰

4.184 In his follow-up letter to the meeting (see paragraph 4.129), Mr Corbally reiterated that 'action should be taken to control the removal of the brain from the skull'. While the IEHO welcomed MAFF looking into a practice 'not considered at the time the Regulations were drawn up and implemented', their view was that 'none of the practices that we have identified can guarantee no contamination with brain tissue . . . of either the head, equipment or environment'. Accordingly, 'we believe that the only way of minimising the risk to public safety is to prohibit removal of the brain'. ³¹

4.185 Mr Corbally concluded:

Despite this view, if a practice can be identified where the brain can be removed with no risk of contamination and no risk to the safety of the operator, consideration should certainly be given to its use. However, guidelines detailing the procedure to be followed must be developed and brought to the attention of all operators and enforcement officers. ³²

Ministers' reservations allayed

4.186 Mr Maclean and Mr Gummer questioned the line being followed by MAFF officials. On 27 April 1990, Mr H P Hill, Private Secretary to Mr Maclean, informed Mr Griffiths of the Meat Hygiene Division that the Ministers:

[H]ave some qualms about the practice of removing brains (splitting the heads) before the head meat, because of the risk of cross-contamination. The Minister is inclined to feel that if there are two other quite satisfactory practices available and there are any doubts about this practice, then we should ban it. ³³

4.187 On 1 May 1990 Ms Jones distributed to senior MAFF officials a draft reply to Mr Hill, advising against legislative provisions to restrict the removal of brains. Ms Jones recommended that the wording of the guidance be strengthened to emphasise that wherever possible head meat should be removed before the brain was removed. ³⁴

4.188 Mr Griffiths responded to Mr Hill the next day (paragraph 4.140 above). Following Ms Jones's draft, he stated that if the procedures recommended in the draft guidance were followed, there would be minimal risk of contamination. If these procedures were banned, the commercial consequences for some slaughterhouses and specialist boning plants could be serious, and industry interests would 'demand justification for the prohibition when the risks of contamination are minimal'. Further, it would 'provoke media interest out of all proportion to the minuscule nature of the problem'. He continued that 'amendment regulations would fuel debate on BSE generally and, inevitably, lead to demands for similar action on spinal cords'. Mr Griffiths recommended that 'action should not be taken either to ban the removal of brains before head meat is recovered or to legislate on the methods which may be used, but to rest on guidance to LAs'. The CVO and Mrs Attridge concurred. ³⁵

4.189 The next day Mr Hill noted on Mr Griffiths's minute, for the benefit of Mr Gummer, that:

In the light of the Minister's recent discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Maclean) we have commissioned further advice on procedures for splitting heads. In the light [of] Mr Griffiths' minute above, Mr Maclean has agreed that we ought not to ban the removal of brains before head meat is recovered, or to legislate on the methods, but that we should strengthen the guidelines. Does the Minister agree? ³⁶

4.190 Ms Jones circulated among MAFF officials for comment a further draft of the guidance to local authorities, on 16 May 1990. She noted that Ministers had agreed the general thrust of the advice, and that Mr Maclean wanted to announce the issuing of the guidance as a formal circular by way of a Parliamentary Question. ³⁷

Further concerns expressed

4.191 The same day the IEHO released a policy document on BSE, which was circulated to every local authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. ³⁸ Though accepting that in general there was no proven risk to the public, it stated:

However, the Institution would re-iterate its concern over the practice of removing, or otherwise handling, the brain of the bovine animal which we view as a potential risk to public health. The practice is not necessary and should be expressly prohibited. ³⁹

4.192 On 21 May 1990 Mr Maclean, Mr Meldrum and other MAFF officials met with representatives of the meat industry and retailers to discuss BSE. On head-splitting, retail representatives suggested that public fears might be laid to rest if the heads were removed completely, so that meat was not recovered in the slaughterhouse. Mr Meldrum explained that:

1. only healthy heads were used;
2. head splitting could be done safely;
3. a change in policy would undermine the current position; and
4. the value of cheek meat was not insignificant. ⁴⁰

4.193 The minutes of the meeting also record that Mr Maclean:

Explained that the animal heads were removed from the carcass and usually taken to another place, where the head meat could be extracted safely. ⁴¹

4.194 Industry representatives then suggested that MAFF should issue a further statement to clarify the situation regarding head-splitting practices and the consumption by humans of specified offal. At the meeting's conclusion it was agreed that a copy of the guidelines on head-splitting should be sent to retailers at the same time as they went to EHOs. ⁴²

4.195 On 21 May 1990 Mr Griffiths of the Meat Hygiene Division reported to the Minister responding to a request that he had received for advice as to the powers of inspection of Ministry officers into meat plants. ⁴³ In relation to SBOs he stated:

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. A particular problem raised by some local authorities has been the techniques for the removal of brains from bovine skulls with least risk of contamination. Guidance for local authorities on good practice is being drawn up following investigations by SVS staff and, subject to clearance by Department of Health, should be ready for issue within a few days. Local authorities are likely to respond to any suggestion that they may not be ensuring strict observance of the regulations with the criticism that the Ministry has dismissed their concerns that the regulations are not strict enough to avoid the possibility of contamination of meat with specified offal. ⁴⁴

4.196 The same day Dr Ruth Jacobs, SMO, ⁴⁵ and Mr Ronald Alexander, EHO, ⁴⁶ both of the Welsh Office, expressed concerns about brain removal to Mr Alan Huws, Agriculture Grade 7 in the Welsh Office. ⁴⁷ They felt that 'the practice of removing the brain of the bovine animal should be expressly prohibited'. ⁴⁸ Two days later Mr Huws wrote to Ms Jones saying: 'I have consulted with both veterinary and medical colleagues about the proposed guidance . . . [and] feel that it would be better if the head meat was only removed with the skull intact'. ⁴⁹

4.197 Concerns about contamination of meat from brains continued to be raised during June 1990 from sources outside central government. For example, on 21 June Mr Felix Hetherington, the County Secretary and Solicitor (County Trading Standards Office, Newport, Isle of Wight), wrote to Mr Gummer urging him, among other things, to implement changes to slaughterhouse procedures to ensure that brain and spinal tissues did not contaminate meat. He added that the suggested measures would boost public confidence in British meat. ⁵⁰

Parliamentary debate on Government's handling of BSE

4.198 On the night of 21 May 1990, there was a debate in the House of Commons on the Government's handling of the BSE outbreak. During the debate, Mr Gummer informed the House that:

[T]wo months ago I asked for expert veterinary advice on the removal of brains in slaughterhouses. It has now come. This broadly supported current practices, but I am asking the Tyrrell committee to consider this, and any other aspects of slaughterhouse practices that it feels may be relevant to the problem. ⁵¹

4.199 Later in the debate, Mr Matthew Taylor explained to the House his concerns about head-splitting and brain removal, and pointed out that during his meeting with Mr Gummer in February he had been assured that expert advice would be sought on the issue. The Minister's mention during his speech of referring the issue to the Tyrrell Committee was the first he had heard since. Mr Taylor went on to emphasise that if brain material was splattered on equipment and meat intended for human consumption, it was naive to think that washing the meat and equipment with water would remove the infective agent. ⁵² Mr Gummer responded:

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about what I have done. I hope that he recognises that the matter has gone to the Tyrrell committee because our expert advice is that what we are doing is in general perfectly acceptable. However, I do not want there to be a scintilla of doubt. ⁵³

4.200 Later Mr David Maclean pointed out that:

Heads are removed from animal carcasses before the splitting of them for the extraction of head meat. Again because we have an open mind, we will happily take any further advice that Tyrrell may give. ⁵⁴

4.201 He added:

The Government's policy is based on the best scientific advice available. Our safety precautions are like my famous belt and two pairs of braces. First, we destroy all the cows with BSE and do spot checks in markets and abattoirs. The ultimate precaution is that we cut out the brain, spinal cord and other specified offal from every cow in the slaughterhouse to be ultra-safe. ⁵⁵

Action taken following the debate

4.202 The next day Mr Gummer and Mr Andrews met and agreed that Dr Tyrrell should be invited to consider the draft guidelines on the splitting of bovine heads. ⁵⁶

4.203 Also on 22 May 1990, Mr Keith Baker sent a telex to all Divisional Veterinary Officers (DVOs) in the UK. It stated that:

We continue to receive reports about bovine brains being removed at some slaughterhouses using high-pressure water hoses.

We have investigated the method in question and advised that it is not acceptable in view of the extent of splashing of brain tissue and water that occurs.

Fuller guidance on this matter will be issued as soon as possible. In the meantime I should be grateful if any similar queries received by you and your staff could be answered in the manner suggested above.

RMHA's should be in a position to offer advice, where necessary, on the most appropriate techniques but the optimum is to remove head meat prior to brain removal. ⁵⁷

4.204 SEAC considered head-splitting guidelines during its 13 June 1990 meeting. The guidelines were essentially the same as those produced by Ms Jones earlier (see paragraphs 4.177-4.181). However, there were some drafting amendments, which had been effected under Mr Andrews's chairmanship on 23 May 1990, ⁵⁸ to emphasise that head meat intended for human consumption should be removed prior to the brain being removed, and high-pressure water hoses should not be used to remove brain tissue. SEAC concluded that:

[P]recautions about the removal of the brain from bovine skulls was a common sense measure. It was not consistent with this policy to permit the removal of the brain before head meat was harvested. ⁵⁹

4.205 On the same day MAFF officials met with the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries, David Maclean and Mr David Curry, primarily to discuss EC requirements in relation to the export of beef. In the course of the meeting, Mr Gummer said that, following SEAC's advice that all head meat should be removed from the intact head, he would like to see guidelines issued to this effect. ⁶⁰

4.206 On 14 June 1990 Mr Meldrum sent a telex to all DVOs and RVOs in England, Scotland and Wales, all RMHAs, and a number of industry, retail and professional bodies. This included the following guidelines:

As a result of a detailed evaluation of practices currently in use in slaughterhouses and boning plants the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has concluded that bovine head meat must be recovered from the intact skull before the brain is removed. ⁶¹

4.207 Vol.13: Industry Processes and Controls should be referred to for discussion of how practices in slaughterhouses changed in response to this guidance.

Agriculture Committee Inquiry into BSE: consideration of brain removal

4.208 Our overview at the start of this chapter noted that the House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee decided to undertake an investigation into BSE on 16 May 1990. In the following paragraphs we describe the concerns expressed about brain removal in evidence and submissions to the Committee. Later on in this chapter we revisit the evidence received by the Committee in relation to MRM (see paragraphs 4.253-4.259) and in relation to the safety of beef (see paragraphs 4.626-4.639).

4.209 During evidence to the Committee, Dr Tyrrell discussed SEAC's consideration of head-splitting practices. He noted that these practices could lead to contamination of meat for human consumption, and continued:

It is, therefore, inconsistent to say, 'We want to prepare the meat so that it can be safely eaten even if the animal is infected' and then contaminate it again in the process of preparing it . . . Our conclusion was that it should not be allowed. ⁶²

4.210 On 20 June 1990 Mr Meldrum informed the Committee that SEAC's advice had gone out to local authorities through DVOs on 8 June. He continued that that advice would be formalised shortly in a written form to local authorities together with, he suspected, 'further advice on good hygienic practices relevant to slaughterhouses and BSE'. Mr Meldrum also suggested that it would have to be considered whether to change from the informal advisory position and 'make it a formal position so the head meat can only be removed from the intact skull'. ⁶³

4.211 The IEHO's evidence to the Committee stated that brain removal was 'not necessary and should be expressly prohibited.' ⁶⁴ In oral evidence, Mr Nicholas Hibbett of the IEHO noted that the MLC's survey (see paragraphs 4.161-4.162) confirmed that head-splitting was occurring, but there was no reasonable cause for it - 'it is a simple expediency which, in our view, is not necessary'. ⁶⁵

4.212 In its report the Committee said that an area of particular concern was that action making the ban on specified offals as watertight as possible be taken. In particular:

We do, however, feel in a position to recommend that the practice of splitting the heads of cattle in abattoirs be outlawed. It brings no significant benefits to anybody and is practically guaranteed to spread public alarm.

We were pleased to note that Dr Tyrrell voiced similar reservations about the latter practice. Recent MAFF guidelines also stipulate that 'bovine head meat must be recovered from the intact skull before the brain is removed'. This is a substantial step in the right direction, although we would like to see appropriate safeguards enshrined in legislation at an early opportunity. ⁶⁶

Government's response to the Select Committee recommendation

4.213 On 24 July, Mr Lowson prepared a draft response to the report, which he circulated widely within MAFF. He noted that the Select Committee had recommended that the practice of splitting heads in the abattoir should be outlawed, but suggested Ministers might like to consider the issuing of 'guidance to Local Authorities and operators that brain removal should be undertaken so as to avoid the risk of cross contamination'. ⁶⁷

4.214 Mr Maclean did not agree with this approach and 'felt that we should legislate on the practice of head splitting, as recommended by the Select Committee'. ⁶⁸ A meeting was held with the Minister and it was agreed:

We should respond as positively as possible to the Select Committee's recommendation on this point. There should be no problem concerning legislating for the removal of head meat before brain removal. It would be desirable to issue guidance and to legislate on removing brains so that they could not contaminate the remainder of the meat, if that were possible. ⁶⁹

4.215 Meanwhile, Dr Tyrrell wrote to Mr Gummer on 23 July communicating SEAC's advice in relation to brain removal from bovine skulls. He stated:

. . . the specified offals ban . . . is designed to remove certain nervous and lymphatic tissue, including brain, from the human food chain. To be consistent, slaughtering practice should therefore ensure that possibly infected brain and spinal cord material does not contaminate muscle tissue destined for human consumption. Various procedures such as sawing the skull open or driving the brain out by water pressure would disperse brain tissue that could contaminate the meat and would not be satisfactorily removed by washing. Such procedures should therefore be carried out in such ways and places that contamination of meat does not occur. We therefore recommend, as far as bovine heads are concerned that head meat should be removed from the skull before the brain is removed. ⁷⁰

4.216 On 21 November 1990 the Government published its response to the Agricultural Select Committee's report and recommendations, noting the recommendation that head meat should be removed from the intact skull before the brain is removed:

The Government accepts the principle of these recommendations. An amendment will be made to the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989. It will lay down that head meat must be recovered from the intact skull before the brain is removed, thereby avoiding any possibility of contamination through brain tissue. ⁷¹

Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992

4.217 The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 came into force on 12 March 1992. These Regulations:

1. prohibited the removal of any meat for human consumption from the head of a bovine animal after the skull had been opened or the brain had been removed; ⁷²
2. prohibited the removal of the brain from the head of a bovine animal in a slaughterhouse or boning plant except in a specific area which at no time was used for food for human consumption; ⁷³ and
3. permitted those bovine heads from which the brain had not been removed to be moved under a movement permit to premises of a processor or a place of storage before transfer to a processor. ⁷⁴

Discussion

4.218 We have not felt that anyone involved in the consideration of head splitting and brain-removal performed so poorly as to merit criticism. At the same time it is right to observe that on this topic the Ministers' instinctive reaction was more satisfactory than MAFF officials' reasoning.

4.219 Prior to the SBO ban the brain would normally remain within the skull and both would go off to be rendered for animal feed. There was, and still is, uncertainty as to how often brain was removed from the head in order to be used for food, but on any footing this was a relatively rare occurrence. Brain was made an SBO to cover those rare cases.

4.220 It was an irony that a regulation designed to keep brain out of the food chain immediately resulted in some slaughterhouses splitting the skull and removing the brain in circumstances that could lead to contamination of meat that would go for human consumption. When this was finally drawn to SEAC's attention, they concluded that it needed no more than common sense to see that this practice should be stopped.

4.221 In formulating a proposed policy for Mr Griffiths, Ms Jones was entirely dependent upon the advice of Mr Hutchins and Mr Johnston; she told us that she had never herself entered a slaughterhouse. We believe that she, and Mr Griffiths who adopted her reasoning, as well as Mrs Attridge and Mr Meldrum who concurred, erred in judgement when weighing the pros and cons of a ban on removing brain before the head meat.

4.222 The effect of guidance to local authorities as to techniques of brain removal, or the desirability of removing the head meat first, was problematical in the absence of any mandatory scheme, particularly when introduced by the statement that the risk was in any case negligible. Apprehensions as to the public reaction to a requirement that head meat be removed before brain were exaggerated. We are inclined to think that the thought that the Regulations were precautionary measures going beyond Southwood tended to obscure an objective approach to the application of the precautionary principle.

4.223 The Ministers were justified in their reservations and did well to call for independent advice. Subsequently Mr Gummer decided to refer this question to SEAC. SEAC was not an appropriate body to consider technical questions of head-splitting techniques. It was, however, well qualified to express a view as to whether risks of contamination from such practices were acceptable.

4.224 In a letter to Mr Huws, Ms Jones explained that SEAC 'have not been presented with the arguments for or against the ban on the practice of head-splitting, but have been left to form their own view on the technical aspects of this issue'. ⁷⁵ SEAC did not enjoy expertise in slaughterhouse practices, but it was able to address the question of whether the risk of contamination from the practices as described could be disregarded as negligible. Having decided that it could not, it concluded that common sense dictated the answer. SEAC's recommendation was clearly a correct application of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical) principle.

4.225 This was a robust recommendation reached without a sophisticated process of risk evaluation. A reasoned process of risk evaluation would have involved:

1. Information on the extent to which the operation of brain removal might involve risk of contamination of head meat.
2. Consideration of the likelihood that contamination on this scale would pose a risk to human health.
3. A balance of potential risk against the financial consequences to the meat industry of a ban on the practice of removing brain before the head meat had been recovered.

4.226 We do not believe that MAFF officials carried out such a process before the matter was referred to SEAC. They simply seem to have assumed that, provided Mr Johnston's guidelines were followed, contamination would not pose a significant risk. No attempt was made to calculate the financial consequences of a ban on removing brain before head meat, in order to weigh those in the scale.

4.227 SEAC for its part appears to have assumed that contamination might be significant, without making any quantification of what this would involve. No attempt appears to have been made to acquaint SEAC with the financial implications of the policy decision.