Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
4. Human health developments:January - December 1990
Slaughterhouse practices and MRM ¹
Introduction
Concerns raised about MRM during 1990
Parliamentary Question on MRM
Growing concerns about MRM in mid-1990
Consumers' Association press release in June 1990
The MLC Consumer Committee notes concerns about MRM
'Tidying up loose ends'

Introduction

4.228 In the previous section we have traced the consideration given to brain removal up to the resolution of the issue as a result of SEAC's robust advice on 13 June. In this section we shall see how other slaughterhouse practices were referred to SEAC, with a less satisfactory outcome.

4.229 Of particular concern was the recovery of MRM from the bovine vertebrae. We explained in Chapter 3 how this matter did not receive the attention it deserved in 1989. Here we recall that concerns that the operation of splitting the carcass could contaminate meat intended for human consumption, and render it inadvisable to use the vertebral column as a source of human food, were raised in April 1989 in Mr Bradley's note to Dr William Watson. ² Similar concerns in relation to the proposed SBO ban were raised during the consultation process. ³

4.230 These concerns continued after the SBO Regulations were introduced. In the general section at the outset of this chapter we described the expression of concern about this practice on the part of the IEHO in April 1990 (see paragraph 4.128). Concerns were expressed about this practice from various other quarters throughout 1990, not least on the part of some who provided evidence and submissions to the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons which sat in May and June to inquire into BSE. We propose to summarise the concerns about MRM from these various quarters before turning to the concerns expressed in evidence and submissions to the Committee.

Concerns raised about MRM during 1990

4.231 On 6 February 1990, Ms Sarah Rimmington of the Meat Hygiene Division wrote to Mr Stephen Hutchins on MRM. She said that:

In a recent BBC radio programme ('Face the Facts', Radio 4, 29.1.90), Mr Martin Cooke, OVS, was interviewed in connection with BSE. He commented that bovine vertebrae were particularly high-yield sources of MRM and that since they would contain residual spinal cord that would then be incorporated into MRM-based meat products, neither he nor his family would in future be eating such products. ⁴

4.232 Mr Hutchins forwarded the minute to Mr Keith Baker the next day saying he would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue. He commented that it was a situation 'in some ways analogous to head splitting, although the "risks" of neural tissue reaching the consumer seem greater with MRM'. ⁵

4.233 Mr K Baker suggested that MRM was another subject for discussion regarding the issue of advice to the industry. He thought they should await the outcome of their deliberations on related matters before taking action. ⁶

4.234 On 9 February 1990, Mr Hutchins replied to Ms Rimmington. He explained that:

I understand from the CVO that this question was discussed with DoH. It was agreed that it did not pose a health risk and that a ban on the use of spinal columns for MRM production was not justified. ⁷

Parliamentary Question on MRM

4.235 Mr Matthew Taylor tabled a Parliamentary Question for written answer on 20 February 1990. He asked if the Minister would 'take steps to ensure that the process of stripping animal bones to obtain mechanically recovered meat entails no risk of spinal tissue being included in the final product'. ⁸

4.236 The reply to the PQ stated that:

As an ultra-precautionary measure my Department introduced the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989, which prohibit the use of spinal cord and other specified bovine offals in food for sale for human consumption. In practice the spinal cord would be removed before recovery of MRM. Animals displaying symptoms of BSE are required to be slaughtered and disposed of so that they do not enter the human food chain. ⁹

Growing concerns about MRM in mid-1990

4.237 We noted, at paragraphs 4.128 and 4.129 that on 9 April 1990 Mr Baker met Mr Corbally of the IEHO to discuss concerns about the SBO Regulations ¹⁰, and that this was followed by a letter from Mr Corbally on 18 April. ¹¹ One of the concerns raised at the meeting was the removal of spinal cord, and Mr Corbally's letter noted that 'MRM could contain significant quantities of spinal cord nervous tissue'.

4.238 As noted in paragraph 4.140, on 2 May 1990 Mr Griffiths minuted the Private Secretary to Mr David Maclean ¹² recommending 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', and adding that amendment regulations would 'fuel debate on BSE generally and, inevitably, lead to demands for similar action on spinal cords'. On this last point he said, 'We are satisfied that the removal of all visible spinal cord is acceptable in health terms'.

4.239 We have noted at paragraphs 4.142-4.145 the advice given to Mr Gummer on slaughterhouse inspection, the Q&A brief for the Parliamentary debate on BSE on 21 May 1990, and what was said by Mr Gummer during that debate.

4.240 On 21 May 1990 the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Maclean, held a meeting with representatives of the meat industry and retailers. The meeting was also attended by Mrs Attridge, Mr Meldrum, Mr Stephen Wentworth ¹³, Mr John Smith ¹⁴ and Mr John Cowan. ¹⁵ The minute describing the meeting recorded, among other things, that:

On MRM, they [the meat industry] could not guarantee a 100% removal of all the specified offal, but Mr Meldrum explained that zero risk was an impossibility. ¹⁶

4.241 Also on 21 May 1990, Mr David Maclean and Mr Meldrum met with representatives from consumer groups. ¹⁷ Dr John Godfrey (Consumers in the European Community Group) raised questions which included the risk from nervous tissue. A paper tabled by Dr Godfrey at the meeting included the following: ¹⁸

As far as I know the only information we have is on the sciatic nerve, which has only low, though variable, amounts of the causative agent in infected animals . . . a careful study seems urgent. Can one be confident that the nerve cell bodies associated with the dorsal root ganglia are not as hazardous as the spinal cord is taken to be? Meat extracted for food from the vertebra column after the spinal cord has been removed as a precaution might well contain dorsal roots. ¹⁹

4.242 In early June, concern about the MRM process and the potential for contamination of carcasses was growing within the SVS. On 4 June, Mr Meldrum in a letter to Mrs Attridge about a forthcoming meeting of the SVC stated:

We in Tolworth are concerned at this practice because in the extraction of the MRM small fragments of nervous tissue would be sucked out and therefore it is difficult to argue that the resultant material could not be significantly contaminated. ²⁰

4.243 This was the first time that Mrs Attridge was made aware of concerns about the MRM process. ²¹

4.244 Mr Meldrum told us that his concern was about peripheral nervous tissue. Although he had not been concerned about this when the SBO Order was being prepared, things had changed. Concerns about BSE were being expressed in the UK and overseas in the context of the implementation of the SBO Regulations. The whole issue of BSE had been discussed at the Scientific Veterinary Committee in January 1990 and Dr Richard Kimberlin's ²² paper had been worked through. Mr Meldrum had described the process of deciding upon the scope of the SBO Regulations as drawing a line in the sand. ²³ In 1990:

Quite clearly there were concerns being expressed about BSE. It follows that if you are concerned about BSE you are also concerned as to whether or not the line in the sand is the correct line at the correct place. ²⁴

4.245 Mr Meldrum added that, because he had been in discussion with Mr Keith Baker and others about the importance of spinal cord removal, he would be assuming at this time that there was a very high level of compliance with the spinal cord removal requirements. ²⁵

4.246 On 20 June, Mr David Curry, the Parliamentary Secretary, visited the Canvin International Ltd slaughterhouse to look at the MRM process. A minute reporting the visit recorded that: ²⁶

Small pieces of spinal cord were being left in the sides of beef and Canvin suggested that the cords should be sucked out before the carcasses were split. Canvin said they were working on the idea. There was very little contamination of carcasses during the splitting as a saw with a band saw blade was being used.

Sales of beef MRM have declined and MRM was not being produced any longer as a routine. A small demonstration was put on for Mr Curry. All the bones from the carcass go into the MRM machine, some having been previously broken into smaller pieces. Canvin thought it would be uneconomic to sort the bones prior to going into the machine.

4.247 During this visit to the plant mention was made of the possibility of using a suction pump to remove all spinal tissue from the spinal canal. Mr Curry was 'impressed by this idea' and requested a short note on its feasibility. ²⁷ Mr Curry stated that he was 'very unhappy about MRM' as 'traces of spinal tissue were found in the product'. ²⁸

4.248 In his minute of 25 June, Mr Alan Bremner, Superintending Meat Hygiene Adviser for the Red Meat Hygiene Section, who had accompanied Mr Curry to the slaughterhouse, said he was very surprised that Mr Curry had seen traces of spinal tissue in MRM:

I was with him and it is so unlikely that I suspect he was misinformed.

What Canvin's said was that they were not happy to sell MRM because of the risk of contamination of the vertebrae with the spinal cord. Unfortunately not all the spinal cord was being removed by the meat inspectors although only small pieces were left. ²⁹

4.249 Mr Bremner commented:

My own view was that if the meat inspectors had done their job correctly, there would have been little risk and if the vertebrae were excluded from MRM, there should be no further risk. ³⁰

Consumers' Association press release in June 1990

4.250 On 25 June 1990 the Consumers' Association issued two press releases on BSE which we describe later in this chapter (see paragraphs 4.612-4.616). One of the press releases was entitled 'Act Now on BSE, Urges Consumers' Association' and included recommendations for action by the Government on MRM and on slaughterhouse practices:

ban the use of beef spinal bones for making mechanically Recovered Meat (MRM) - scraps stripped from the bones - and review the safety of the process

give consumers more information about meat products, including species, country of origin and presence of MRM

. . .

implement the commitment - by 1991 - that all live cattle in slaughterhouses be inspected for disease in line with EC proposals

ensure that no slaughterhouses employ unhygienic practices that risk the contamination by BSE of any part of carcasses. ³¹

The MLC Consumer Committee notes concerns about MRM

4.251 The MLC was aware of concerns about MRM. A paper on BSE prepared in June for a meeting of the MLC's Consumer Committee noted that concerns had been expressed about MRM:

The splitting of carcasses with circular and band saws (and occasionally with a cleaver) damages the spinal cord and may cause contamination of surrounding tissue. The spinal column is the main yielder in the mechanically recovered meat (MRM) operation. In spite of assurances that the causative organisms of BSE is not present in the spinal column of healthy animals presented for slaughter, there has been concern expressed regarding MRM.

'Tidying up loose ends'

4.252 On 5 July, Mr Maclean minuted Mr Gummer with regard to 'tidying up some loose ends' in relation to BSE. ³² This was copied to Mr Richard Gueterbock, ³³ Mr Charles Capstick (Head of Food Safety, MAFF), Mr Meldrum, Mrs Attridge, Mr Lowson and Mr Alan Lawrence. ³⁴ We described some of Mr Maclean's general points above in paragraph 4.91. In respect of MRM he stated:

I am getting increasing media interest in MRM and I am not happy that we are watertight on two counts. First, we have seen David Curry's minute of his visit to Canvin International and Dr Denner's minute suggesting further research to see if any spinal material gets into MRM.

Dr Tyrrell is looking at this but even if he rules it perfectly safe, we will still have a massive lack of consumer confidence in a product which is universally disliked. If he is ambivalent about it, or says that some aspects are unsafe, then it will be impossible to defend the 'safe' aspects and we would, in all probability, lose the whole process. ³⁵

4.253 On slaughterhouses, Mr Maclean commented that when the various authorities with an enforcement role in slaughterhouses were considered, 'it is easy to see how allegations of malpractice or inadequate supervision can gain credence'. ³⁶ Mr Maclean's summary for future action included the following:

We need a major announcement on the inspection and supervision of slaughterhouses before the Summer Recess.

We should announce that MAFF 'will devote more resources to slaughterhouse supervision. IMMEDIATE ACTION ³⁷

4.254 We saw at paragraph 4.92 above that Mr Gummer sought urgent advice from Mr Andrews on the implications of Mr Maclean's proposals, ³⁸ and that Mr Andrews responded on 10 July. ³⁹ In relation to the recommended major announcement on inspection and supervision of slaughterhouses, Mr Andrews noted that Mr Gummer had asked for SEAC to advise. He suggested waiting for the report of the Agriculture Select Committee, which could refer to the point, before reaching any conclusion. He noted that while MAFF was responsible for EU-approved slaughterhouses, inspection and supervision of domestic slaughterhouses was for local authorities. Therefore, legally MAFF could only advise local authorities, but regardless, they did not have the veterinary resources for such a role. ⁴⁰