Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
4. Human health developments:January - December 1990
Slaughterhouse practices and MRM
Agriculture Committee Inquiry into BSE: considerations about MRM
Report of the Agriculture Committee in respect of MRM
Government response to the report of the Agriculture Committee
SEAC

Agriculture Committee Inquiry into BSE: considerations about MRM

4.255 As described earlier in this chapter, the House of Commons Agriculture Committee ('the Committee') undertook an inquiry into BSE during May and June 1990 and published their report on 10 July 1990. ¹ In the following paragraphs we describe the concerns expressed about MRM in evidence and submissions to the Committee.

4.256 In relation to MRM, the IEHO had written to MAFF on 18 April 1990 (see paragraph 4.129) questioning the safety of MRM. In its submission to the Committee it commented on the fact that it had not yet received a response from MAFF. ²

4.257 The British Veterinary Association asked MAFF to 'tackle' the standards in slaughterhouses and give greater reassurance that the removal of the spinal cord did not present a problem in transferring some spinal material to meat. Furthermore, they asked that the MRM process be reviewed. ³

4.258 The Consumers in the European Community Group, ⁴ the Director of the Parents for Safe Food and the Food Safety Advisory Centre wrote to the Committee requesting that MRM be banned. The Food Safety Advisory Centre requested that MRM be banned from both human and animal consumption. ⁵ The Director of the Parents for Safe Food requested that MRM production be suspended, at least until:

categoric guarantees can be given that spinal cord and other Central Nervous System tissue is not getting into butchery by-products which make up MRM raw material. ⁶

4.259 The Consumers' Association asked for a prohibition on the use of beef spinal bones for making MRM and an urgent investigation into the MRM process to assess safety implications. ⁷

4.260 Dr Gerald Forbes, the Director of the Environmental Health (Scotland) Unit (1989-93), questioned the safety of MRM. He wrote to the Committee and stated:

With regard to mechanically recovered meat, the question remains, can any guarantee be given that parts of the central nervous system of cattle do not enter this product? I would suggest that this is not possible and whether or not the practice of producing mechanically recovered meat can be considered safe is very much open to doubt. ⁸

4.261 The National Consumer Council requested that further measures be taken to reduce the risk of potentially infective tissue entering the food chain, including new controls on the use of MRM. ⁹ Both the British Medical Association and the British Federation of University Women were concerned that measures be taken to ensure that none of the head or spinal tissue remained in the meat for human consumption. ¹⁰

Report of the Agriculture Committee in respect of MRM

4.262 The Agriculture Committee delivered its report on BSE on 10 July 1990. The Committee recognised that the inadvertent inclusion of SBO in MRM might have passed, or theoretically could still pass, the BSE agent on to humans. ¹¹ The Committee described this possibility as a 'slight loophole' due to slaughterhouses failing to carry out the Regulations 'to the letter'. The Committee received no evidence of an irresponsible approach to the Regulations but noted that this did not necessarily mean that they were 'watertight'. ¹² Ultimately, however, the Committee did not make any conclusions or recommendations on MRM. ¹³ In this respect the Committee stated:

All our witnesses were in agreement that the infectivity of the BSE agent is related to the quantity of the agent involved. Thus the brains of a subclinically affected animal would be less infectious that that of one in the final throes of the disease; a six-month old calf less infectious than one in whom the disease had been incubating for two years; a nerve at the periphery of the nervous system less infectious than the brain itself. Although, therefore, the authorities are right to address the possibility that infectious tissue from a sub-clinically affected animal might inadvertently be included with, or otherwise contaminate, meat sold for human consumption, such a possibility need not cause undue concern because of the small quantities of the agent likely to be involved. This element in scientific arguments has a critical bearing on the food safety issue, but has been consistently ignored or understated by those wishing to present the risks to humans in their most dramatic light. ¹⁴

Government response to the report of the Agriculture Committee

4.263 The Government produced a formal response to the report of the Agriculture Committee on BSE in November 1990. In preparing the response Mr Lowson acknowledged that the report raised 'a series of difficult issues'. ¹⁵ Dr Hilary Pickles, PMO, stated that the recommendations contained in the report 'should be accepted, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary'. ¹⁶

4.264 The response commented on how the Government had asked SEAC to advise on other slaughterhouse practices:

They have now done so, taking account in particular of their first hand observation of the slaughtering process. They have concluded that, providing that the rules relating to slaughtering practices are followed and properly supervised, there is no need on consumer protection grounds to propose further measures. ¹⁷

SEAC

4.265 At this point we give an account of MAFF's preparation of the paper on slaughterhouse practices submitted to SEAC for consideration at its sixth meeting on 1 November 1990. It traces the genesis of this paper, in particular how MAFF's original intention in June 1990 had been to prepare a technical paper on MRM for SEAC, in response to concerns about the safety of UK sausages. However, the MRM paper was later incorporated into a more comprehensive paper on slaughterhouse practices which was submitted to SEAC for its sixth meeting. The final paper focused on the issues of carcass-splitting, MRM and pithing rods.

Why involve SEAC?

4.266 In a Commons debate on BSE on 21 May 1990, Mr Matthew Taylor MP expressed concerns that slaughterhouses were not complying with the ban on specified offals. In response Mr Gummer had advised that SEAC was to consider the matter:

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. ¹⁸

4.267 On 22 May 1990, Mr Gummer discussed with Mr Andrews the task of referring questions on slaughterhouse practices to SEAC. It was recognised that SEAC did not have any expertise in relation to slaughterhouse practices so it would be appropriate to suggest that Mr Johnston, a senior lecturer at the College of Veterinary Surgeons, be involved. ¹⁹

4.268 An article in the Sunday Times on 10 June titled 'Vets question the safety of UK sausages' ²⁰ led Mrs Attridge to minute Mr Harrison, the Private Secretary to the Minister, on the subject. She suggested it would be worthwhile to seek more information about MRM. ²¹

4.269 On 12 June Mr Meldrum minuted Mrs Attridge regarding MRM. He stated that he had:

some difficulties with the concept of obtaining MRM from bovine carcasses and particularly from the vertebral column because of the risk of sucking out residual nervous tissue and causing contamination. Although we have accepted, so far, that the risk is minimal we do need to be somewhat guarded in any statement we make since this is an issue that will be considered by Tyrrell and may lead to a restriction on the derivation of MRM from some parts of the bovine carcass. ²²

4.270 On 13 June, at SEAC's third meeting, the following conclusions were recorded in the minutes after a discussion on head-splitting:

Similar issues arose with spinal cord; if it made sense to avoid contamination by brain tissue of meat for human consumption it appeared on the face of it to make equal sense to avoid contamination of such meat with the spinal cord, which was just as likely to carry infection. Further information is needed on this. ²³

4.271 At the meeting which took place on the same day between Ministers and senior MAFF officials it was recognised that SEAC would not be expert in the procedures involved in the MRM process, so it would be necessary for MAFF to prepare a paper on the technical issues involved. ²⁴ Mr Meldrum and Mrs Attridge were asked urgently to take forward the preparation of a detailed assessment of the possible hazards of MRM. ²⁵

4.272 On 14 June, Mrs Attridge sent a minute to Mr Meldrum regarding MRM. She suggested that a paper be prepared that could be put to SEAC:

The paper will need to take into account:-

a) What the process is, and in particular how it deals with the parts of the vertebral column from which the specified offals will have been removed;

b) The quantity of the material being produced (including its value) and what it is being used for - my recollection that this is mainly meat pies rather than sausages, or least so far as beef is concerned;

c) Some risk assessment of the material in relation to other materials such as eg sheep and sheep products, lymph nodes and similar nervous tissue in meat which will not be affected by any restrictions, bearing in mind that this material will be coming from clinically healthy animals and that increasingly the animals slaughtered will not have been eating meat and bone meal.

The paper for the Tyrrell Committee may also need to consider what powers we could utilise if they suggested that any action be taken . . . Should the Minister decide that any action was appropriate, he would need to act on a rational basis otherwise he would be subject to judicial review. It is particularly important that decisions should not be taken for presentational or other reasons, but be clearly based on science and on appropriate risk assessment. ²⁶

4.273 Mr Bremner responded to this minute from Mrs Attridge stating that the CVO had already asked the SVS and the Meat Hygiene Division to prepare a draft paper which would be circulated to all interested parties and take into account the points she had raised. ²⁷

4.274 On 18 June 1990, Dr William Denner, Head of Food Science Division, minuted Mrs Attridge responding to her concerns raised in her 11 June minute on MRM. He stated:

7. The majority of beef MRM manufacturers adhere to the British Meat Manufacturers Association draft code of practice regarding which bones can be used for MRM production. This code requires the removal of the spinal cord and specifically excludes the use of the longer bones, ie bones with higher marrow content, and also head bones. ²⁸

4.275 Furthermore he believed that:

9. If the risk of BSE from muscle meat is regarded as negligible, then the use of MRM would not seem to add to that risk provided the MRM was prepared in accordance with para 7 above. ²⁹

4.276 Mrs Attridge forwarded this minute to Mr Lowson on 19 June and suggested that this information could be incorporated into any paper put forward to SEAC. ³⁰

The paper for SEAC on slaughterhouse practices

4.277 SEAC's paper had its origins in a draft paper on MRM prepared by Mr F Taylor of Meat Hygiene Division with assistance from Mr Bremner, the Superintending Meat Hygiene Adviser. This, as Mr Taylor explained in a covering minute, had needed 'widespread consultation on technical aspects'. ³¹ This was subsequently rewritten by Food Standards Division in conjunction with Food Science Division. ³²

4.278 The revised paper followed the structure of the original paper by Mr F Taylor that included sections on MRM processing, food labelling regulations, the BMMA Code of Practice, MRM research work and EU involvement.

4.279 The draft gave a description of contamination to the vertebrae that was likely to result from damage to the spinal cord and when the vertebral column was split. It referred to the risk of transference of nervous tissue from the vertebral column to MRM.

4.280 The draft paper concluded as follows:

In the absence of a wholly satisfactory method of removing nervous tissue from the vertebral column, the following courses of action might be considered to minimise the risk of meat and bones, contaminated with nervous tissue, being used in the manufacture of MRM:

(a) issue guidance to the trade on how to minimise contamination of bovine carcasses from CNS tissue when splitting the carcass;

(b) request local authorities to ensure that, on inspection of the carcasses, spinal cord material has been removed; . . .

(c) prevention of the use of any meat or bones from the vicinity of the spinal column, by excluding the use of the vertebrae, in the production of MRM;

(d) avoidance of all perceived risk by prohibiting manufacture of MRM from bovine carcasses.

Where necessary, legislation could be introduced to implement options (c) and (d) above.

Recommendation

Further work has to be carried out before the risk can be fully evaluated.

There is the likelihood that options (a) and (b) would be seen as recognition that there was a need for further action without taking any enforceable steps to ensure its fulfilment.

Option (d) would result in widespread opposition from a substantial number of MRM producers and users, with the accusation of wastage of perfectly good meat, a reduction in consumer choice, and increased costs.

On the other hand option (c) would solve any perceived problem while allowing trade in acceptable meat to continue. ³³

4.281 Mr Meldrum wrote to Mr F Taylor instructing him to make further drafting changes:

There needs to be some risk assessment introduced into the paper particularly to explain that MRM is being obtained from totally healthy cattle in which the agent would either be totally absent from the brain or spinal cord or present in very low quantities indeed. We can use the paper prepared by Dr Pickles for the Tyrrell Committee to give us an indication of the arguments we should deploy. I am enclosing a copy of that paper and maybe Mr David Taylor can help you to deploy the most appropriate arguments . . .

Paragraph 11 should be titled 'Summary' and should not, at this stage include any recommendations. It would not be true to say that options (a) and (b) are negative as they are stated and are very positive in the respect that we would be giving clear advice to the industry and local authorities as to how to reduce any possible contamination of MRM. Although presentationally option (c) is attractive, it still has significant difficulties since we have allowed MRM to continue to be obtained for so long and we could be criticised that we are seeking a lower risk assessment than the facts warrant. We must not ignore the reality of the situation and that MRM is being obtained from healthy animals in which the agent is unlikely to be present at all and, if present, at very low concentrations indeed. On balance therefore I would link (a) and (b) in a rather more positive fashion for consideration by the Tyrrell Committee. ³⁴

4.282 On 29 August, Mr F Taylor sent a further draft to Mr Lawrence, under cover of a minute which expressed the hope that the draft was close to submission and referred to a request from Mr Lowson, who had gone on leave, that Mr Lawrence should submit it when finalised. ³⁵

4.283 This draft repeated the possible courses of action set out in the previous draft. In place of 'Recommendations', the draft ended with the following 'conclusions':

As a possibility may exist of contamination of MRM from the spinal cord or other parts of the carcass, further work should be carried out to evaluate this risk.

If a risk is established there is the likelihood that the options in paragraphs 10(a) and (b) above would be seen as recognition that there is a need for further action without any enforceable steps being taken to ensure a remedy.

The adoption of the option in paragraph 10(d) would almost certainly result in widespread opposition from a substantial number of MRM producers and users, critical of wastage of perfectly good meat and increased costs.

Implementation of the option in paragraph 10(c) would, on the other hand, solve any perceived problem, whilst allowing trade in acceptable meat to continue. ³⁶

4.284 Mr Meldrum minuted Mr Lawrence on 3 September with a suggestion for a further amendment to the draft:

We may be placing ourselves in something of a quandary with particular reference to further action. If we go further than to offer advice then the Tyrrell Committee is going further than the action we have proposed within the SVS and presentationally it will appear [as] if our advice is faulty. For that reason I would prefer there to be a comment in the paper as to what advice we have given so far to the industry on MRM production and, in particular, to Local Authorities on removal of spinal cord tissue. ³⁷

4.285 In a minute to Mr Lawrence, Mr Charles Cockbill, Head of the Food Standards Division, also suggested further amendments to the draft. He was concerned that legislation would raise problems under EU law and involve expenditure on enforcement. He concluded by stating:

Whilst therefore the option of legislation should not necessarily be excluded from the considerations of the Tyrrell Committee I think that the paper leads the Committee to the conclusion that it is an easy option which could be simply followed. I hope I have illustrated in this minute that it is not so easy and that even if it was followed I am far from certain that the problems that you would want to address would be solved by it.

I suggest therefore that the paper is far more tentative in its conclusions as regard possible legislation on the restriction of the bones from which MRM might be derived. Perhaps it ought to develop rather more the rules and guidance and controls on ensuring that spinal cord material is properly removed from the carcass at the slaughtering stage without the risk of contamination of other material. ³⁸

4.286 It was not until October that Mr Lowson produced the final draft. This added to the existing paper on MRM a section provided by Mr F Taylor on 'Carcass Splitting' and a further section on 'Pithing Rods'. It also incorporated some additional material at the suggestion of Mr Bradley. It included the following information:

The splitting of the bovine carcass is the last major dressing operation prior to carcass inspection. The carcass is spread so that the hind legs are anchored as far apart as is practicable. The back saw cuts down from the sacro-coccygeal area through the mid-line of the spinal column until the two halves are separated. In most cases a reciprocating saw is used. This has relatively slow action procedures and produces visible amounts of bone waste . . .

The spinal cord will inevitably receive some damage during this operation, although it is often surprisingly intact. It generally will be removed by use of a blunt hook, or similar implement, drawn down the length of the spinal canal . . .

The concern that has been expressed regarding carcass splitting relates to the possible transfer of material from the damaged spinal cord onto the carcass. The volume of material is likely to be small, in most cases no more than a few grams. It will be concentrated around the cut surface of the spinal column, perhaps with some slight spill over onto exposed meat surfaces. The routine washing of the carcasses will, if done sufficiently promptly (as would be normal practice), remove the greater part of any gross particular matter. However no data are available about the quantity of spinal cord tissue likely to come into contact or remain with material used for human consumption. Such data could be obtained by comparing the mean weight of spinal cord collected after splitting with that obtained after necropsy using a standard procedure to account for the length of spinal nerves etc. ³⁹

4.287 In relation to MRM, the paper stated:

Inevitably when bovine carcasses are split through the centre of the vertebral column in the slaughterhouse some nervous tissue can remain and some contamination of the vertebrae with central nervous system (CNS) tissue can occur. This will be as a result of: -

(a) small pieces of spinal cord inadvertently remaining in the vertebral column;

(b) contamination from carcass splitting; or

(c) the failure to remove nerves from between the vertebrae.

It is unlikely that lymph nodes and other nervous tissue associated with the muscle are left adhering to the bones, since only residual meat remains after the deboning stage. However, there will probably be some peripheral nervous tissue still present within the vertebral column. Therefore, any risk passed by MRM would seem to be by the transference of the BSE agent from nervous tissue to the MRM. It is still not known however, if even where the spinal cord is removed cleanly, any risk exists from the remaining nervous tissue in the vertebral column. ⁴⁰

4.288 The paper no longer contained a section on 'Possible Courses of Action', and it only listed areas in which research could be useful; including

- the quantification of the extent of any residue of CNS tissue left with the carcass when the cutting process is complete . . .

- assessment of possible alternative methods of removing the spinal cord or cutting the carcass

- methods of detection of CNS tissue in MRM, and then determination of the presence of CNS tissue in MRM.

4.289 The paper closed with a one-paragraph conclusion inviting the Committee to:

Consider on the basis of the available evidence whether any action or guidance is required in relation to slaughterhouse practices, and whether any new R&D is needed. ⁴¹

4.290 Before their sixth meeting, at which they discussed the paper on slaughterhouse practices, Dr Tyrrell and most of the members of his Committee between them visited two slaughterhouses. Dr Kimberlin later gave this description of the visits to the Lamming Committee:

Committee members had visited commercial abattoirs to witness the removal of spinal cord from carcasses, and had been very impressed by the way it had been performed. The spinal cord had been surprisingly tough and easy to remove . . . the demonstration had probably [taken] place in the better slaughterhouses and the purpose of the visits was to assess the feasibility of spinal cord removal, not how well it was being done in slaughterhouses. ⁴²

SEAC's conclusions

4.291 SEAC considered the paper at its sixth meeting on 1 November 1990. The minutes do not record any specific discussion of MRM. In relation to slaughterhouse practices they record:

Those members who had been involved in the slaughterhouse visit had noted that, if proper procedures were followed, specified offals could be satisfactorily removed at the slaughterhouse, and in particular that the spinal cord could be extracted from the carcass without difficulty. The Committee therefore concluded that, provided all the rules were properly followed and supervised, there was no need to recommend further measures on the grounds of consumer protection (operator safety was a matter for HSE). ⁴³

4.292 In a statement to the Inquiry, Dr Tyrrell on behalf of SEAC stated that:

The advice given by SEAC was expressed to be subject to a proviso or condition. That condition or proviso is set out above and is in the use of the words 'if' and 'provided'. It is necessary to read the conclusion in full to understand it. It was for Ministers and their officials to consider SEAC's advice and decide if the provisos or conditions explicitly mentioned could be met . . . SEAC members regarded giving advice, in the qualified terms in which it was expressed, to be within their role and expertise. The conclusion was, essentially, negative. ⁴⁴

4.293 On 8 November 1990, Mr Lowson circulated the draft minutes of SEAC's sixth meeting to Mr Meldrum, Mrs Attridge, Mr Bradley, Mr Kevin Taylor, Dr Richard Cawthorne, ⁴⁵ Dr Kenneth MacOwan, ⁴⁶ Mr John Wilesmith, ⁴⁷ Mrs Brown, Mr Lawrence and Mr Maslin. He did so under cover of a minute setting out 'what seems to me to be the action now required'. Action was required in relation to a number of topics. So far as slaughterhouse practices were concerned, Mr Lowson stated:

No further action, except that I will seek Ministers' views on whether they want to publicise the Committee's conclusion. ⁴⁸

4.294 Mr Lowson summarised the Committee's position in a minute to Mr Maclean, and copied to, among others, Mr Gummer, Mr Andrews, Mr Capstick, Mr Meldrum, Mrs Attridge and Mrs Jane Brown. This stated that SEAC had been:

specifically considering the issues raised by carcass splitting, mechanically recovered meat and pithing rods. This included visiting two slaughterhouses and seeing the slaughtering process at first hand. In the light of these visits, and of papers prepared in Tolworth, the Committee concluded that so long as the rules were properly observed and proper supervision was maintained, there was no need to recommend further control measures on grounds of food safety.

The Committee does not intend to produce a formal document setting out this advice but are aware that Ministers may choose to make some kind of public announcement. ⁴⁹

4.295 Mr Lowson's minute also noted that SEAC did not intend to produce a formal document setting out this advice. Mr Lowson suggested that the advice be announced by an appropriate insertion in the Government Response to the Report of the Agriculture Select Committee. A handwritten note at the foot of the minute records that Mr Maclean was content with this approach. ⁵⁰