Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
5. Human health developments: 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1995
Implementation of precautionary measures in relation to BSE
Concerns about MRM from 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1995
Amendments to the SBO Regulations

Concerns about MRM from 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1995

Introduction

5.188 As described earlier in this volume, prior to the introduction of the SBO ban in November 1989 it had been decided that there was no need for the recovery of MRM from the spinal column to be banned. The issue of MRM had been reconsidered in November 1990 by SEAC as part of their wider review of slaughterhouse practices. SEAC, although not specifically referring to MRM, advised that 'provided all the rules were properly followed and supervised, there was no need to recommend further measures on the grounds of consumer protection'. ¹ (For a detailed discussion see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of this volume.)

5.189 From January 1991 further concerns were raised about MRM and are considered here. No regulatory action was taken on MRM until 1995, an account of which is given in Chapter 6 of this volume.

Consumer concerns about MRM

5.190 In August 1992, consumer concerns about MRM were raised in Which? Way to Health magazine, which remarked in an article on BSE:

The Chief Medical Officer has given the all clear to eat beef, but it's still possible that BSE could get into our food through scraps from cattle bones used in ground meat products like pâté and some sausages. ²

5.191 Prior to August 1992 a number of major supermarket chains had ceased using MRM in their own products.

5.192 Mr Mike Wildman, Senior Manager, Meat Technology, J Sainsbury plc, stated in written evidence to the Inquiry that MRM had been removed from Sainsburys' products since June 1988 because of microbiological concerns. However, the emergence of BSE served as 'an additional reason to eliminate MRM'. ³

5.193 Mr Stephen Ridge, Quality Assurance Executive for Somerfields Stores (since 1988) said in oral evidence to the Inquiry that Somerfields had excluded MRM in their own products from 1990. There was concern about the microbiological standard of MRM, but also a concern 'that the pressing process was actually going to potentially extrude a certain amount of lymphatic and nervous tissues'. ⁴

5.194 Dr Alistair Robertson, Director of Technical Operations with Safeway Stores ⁵, in his written statement told the Inquiry that it had been Safeway policy since June 1992 not to use MRM from any meat animal species in any Safeway branded products, including pet foods. The decision was 'based on consumer perception that meat protein from such sources was in some way connected with the restrictions on the use of specified offal' and 'Safeway could not invoke reliable systems of traceability on such materials'. ⁶

Government consideration of MRM

5.195 The issue of prohibiting the use of spinal column for the extraction of MRM was discussed on 8 April 1994 during a meeting held to review MAFF's arrangements for disposal of SBO. The meeting was chaired by Mr Meldrum and attended by Messrs Crawford, Baker, Kevin Taylor, Simmons and John Howard. ⁷ At this meeting:

It was confirmed that the Fresh Meat Regulations prohibited the use of the head for the production of mechanically recovered meat (MRM). CVO thought that one way to increase security would be also to prohibit the use of the spinal column for MRM production, although there was no new scientific evidence to justify such a measure. However Mr K Taylor pointed out that the Select Committee had endorsed the use of restrictions to improve public perception, rather than for scientific reasons, as a valid objective. It was agreed that Mr Baker would consider this problem. ⁸

5.196 On 29 May 1994, Mr Bradley sent a minute to Mr Meldrum on 'tightening up' the SBO Regulations. On removing the spinal cord he suggested:

Training of abattoir workers to a common standard to maximise the safety of carcase splitting (in regard to causing mutilation of the spinal cord) and to maximise the cord removed from carcase might be considered. Perhaps this is already done. ⁹

5.197 The European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee (ScVC) ¹⁰ discussed new BSE-related trade measures for British beef in early July 1994. The main recommendation arising from the meetings, and later adopted by the EC, was that UK exported beef on the bone be accompanied by a certificate to confirm that the holding from which it had originated had been BSE-free for the past six years. ¹¹ The ScVC considered that there was a potential risk if any spinal cord was left in the column and it was then used for MRM. ¹²

5.198 On 8 July 1994, David Rossington, Head of Beef Division, MAFF, ¹³ reported on the implications of this in a minute to the Minister:

The spinal column (i.e. the meat and bones around the spine) is the main material used for MRM production from cattle. If its use is banned altogether, then the production of beef MRM could cease. This could again have severe financial consequences for those in the trade involved. ¹⁴

5.199 On 11 July 1994, in a submission to Sir Wyn Roberts (later Lord Roberts of Conway), Welsh Office Minister of State, Mr Huws of WOAD noted that:

The spinal column itself is the main material used for MRM production and if its use is banned bovine MRM production will probably cease. The UK trade tell MAFF that they do not use the spinal column from cull cows for mechanically recovered meat and use only prime beef. However, past experience suggests these assurances are not always reliable. ¹⁵

5.200 The ScVC held a further full meeting on 11 July. Reporting on this in a minute of the 12 July to the Minister, Mr Eddy noted:

. . . the Committee have kept the recommendation that we should stop using the vertebrae from cattle killed in the UK for production of mechanically recovered meat. The one small change from the sub group who suggested this as a blanket prohibition for all cattle slaughtered in the UK, is that the full Committee feel that it is only necessary for animals born before 1/1/91. This is a small relaxation but might help the UK trade which tell us that they do not use cull cow beef for MRM.

Mr Eddy attached a Question and Answer brief to the minute:

Q. But what about Mechanically Recovered Meat?

A. The Committee's concern relates again primarily to practices in other Member States where, unlike in the UK, vertebrae from adult cattle are used in the preparation of MRM. On balance, however, it would be wise to accept this measure on a Community-wide basis. There would be no practical effect within the UK.

Q. Should we not have banned MRM before?

A. No. This can be a valuable raw material and the only vertebrae which give the Scientific Veterinary Committee any cause for concern are not normally used in the UK.

Q. Should we ban all MRM?

A. No. There is no reason to ban the use of materials which are safe. ¹⁶

5.201 However, Mr Eddy's draft question and answers would not have been needed, as the ScVC's recommendation on MRM was not taken any further. The decision presented to and agreed by the SVC on measures to strengthen EC rules on BSE on 21 July 1994 made no reference to MRM. The European Commission's final decision (94/474) was made on 27 July 1994. ¹⁷

5.202 MAFF prepared a short paper on MRM for SEAC to consider at their meeting on 30 August 1994, seeking the Committee's views on the use of spinal column in MRM production from cattle born and slaughtered in the UK. ¹⁸ However, the paper was deferred at the meeting and was discussed by SEAC in June 1995. (See Chapter 6 of this volume for details.)

5.203 Mr Eddy discussed the reason for the preparation of the paper in his statement to us:

This had been put to them because the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the EU Commission had recommended that UK derived spinal column should not be used for production of MRM except from cattle from herds free of BSE for more than six years. Although the Commission had not taken up this recommendation we felt that it would be appropriate in these circumstances to seek SEAC's views again on the subject. It was also necessary to inform the Committee that contrary to previous advice (which I understand had been given to the Committee prior to my Secretaryship in the early days of SEAC) that MRM was produced only from young cattle and did not use older cull cattle, we now understood that cull cattle were used to produce MRM. Again the Committee concluded [in June 1995] that provided that the SBOs (particularly the spinal cord) were properly removed, then production of MRM from the remaining vertebral column was safe and there was no reason for it to be banned. ¹⁹

Amendments to the SBO Regulations

5.204 In the following paragraphs we describe the amendments to the SBO Regulations in relation to human health from 1991 to March 1995. Changes to the SBO Regulations with implications for animal health are discussed in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96.

The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1992

5.205 The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations came into effect on 12 March 1992, ²⁰ introducing amendments to the original SBO Regulations. The amendments to the Regulations gave statutory force to guidance on bovine brain removal issued by MAFF in June 1990 (see Chapter 4 of this volume).

5.206 The removal of meat from bovine heads after the skull had been opened was prohibited. ²¹ In addition, brain removal could be carried out only in a place kept free at all times of food intended for human consumption. ²² These prohibitions were introduced to prevent cross-contamination of carcasses for human consumption from possibly infective brain material.

5.207 The original prohibition on selling SBO or using SBO in the preparation of food for human consumption was extended to cover 'any material derived wholly or partly from' SBO. ²³

5.208 Further amendments under the Regulations were also made regarding the staining, sterilisation and disposal of bovine brains. ²⁴ The need for most of these amendments had been recognised some two years earlier.

The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 and infectivity in distal ileum of calves under the age of six months ²⁵

5.209 When the SBO Regulations were drafted during June-November 1989, it was decided that offal from calves younger than six months of age posed no risk to human health, as the BSE agent was unlikely to be found in such offal. On the other hand, certain types of offal from calves older than six months were designated as SBO under the Regulations. For a detailed discussion on the exclusion of calves aged under six months from the SBO Regulations, see Chapter 3 of this volume.

5.210 On 17 June 1994, Mr Meldrum minuted MAFF Ministers and other MAFF officials ²⁶ to advise them about the results of a MAFF-funded pathogenesis experiment with calves. The experiment had detected the BSE agent in the distal ileum (small intestine) of calves killed at six and ten months, having each been fed - at the age of four months - with 100 g of brain homogenate from a clinical case of BSE. He noted that this was 'the first time [that] the BSE agent has been shown to be present in tissues outside the central nervous system'. ²⁷ Mr Meldrum advised that publication of the preliminary results was being arranged, and that the final results would be available in September 1994, February 1995 and May 1995. ²⁸

5.211 Mr Meldrum's minute was discussed with the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Soames, on 21 June. In a minute of 22 June to the Minister, Mr Packer, Mr Dugdale and Mr Rossington and copied to other MAFF Ministers and to the Permanent Secretary, Mr Eddy noted that Mr Soames had suggested that the views of the SEAC be obtained before any public announcement was made. He also noted that DH agreed with this suggestion. Mr Charles Lister of DH, who was responsible for the administrative aspects of BSE, ²⁹ was sent a copy of Mr Eddy's minute. ³⁰

5.212 On 22 June 1994, Dr Jeremy Metters, Deputy CMO, contacted Dr David Tyrrell, the Chairman of SEAC, for his personal reaction to the results. Dr Metters reported, in a minute to Dr Kenneth Calman, the CMO, that Dr Tyrrell responded that 'scientifically, these results do not come as a surprise' and that 'the calves in question were fed BSE-infected brain from a clinical case designed to provoke transmission'. Dr Metters further noted in the minute:

. . . the risk to human health, if any, in Dr Tyrrell's view comes from human consumption of the SBOs before the offal ban was introduced in 1989. Any potential risk from cattle now entering the food chain is likely to be small when compared with any risk that may have been present pre-1989;

in Dr Tyrrell's view, the issue is one of political and public perception of risk which has always been magnified out of proportion to the scientific assessment. ³¹

5.213 Mr Kevin Taylor, Assistant CVO, in a minute on the experiment results to Mrs Shephard, noted that the 'SBO ban is a vital control in the protection of public health: probably the most important single measure'. He discussed the results and said:

At worst this indicates that, contrary to what was believed until now, a potentially infected tissue is still available for use in human or animal food . . . This is why Tyrrell is being given the information and asked for advice. It is unlikely that his committee will be content to recommend no action.

5.214 Mr Taylor advised that SEAC might suggest extending the SBO ban to cattle of all ages:

Domestically, extending the SBO ban to cover intestine at any age would cause few practical problems. Extending the full SBO ban would be much more difficult because calf carcasses are not normally split, so the spinal cord is not accessible for removal. ³²

5.215 SEAC held an 'exceptional meeting' on 25 June 1994 to focus on a pre-publication paper on the pathogenesis tests and to provide advice to the Government on:

(a) the coverage of the specified bovine offals ban - whether the findings indicate that the range of tissues continues to be appropriate or needs to be amended;

(b) the exemption from the specified bovine offals ban of calves slaughtered before the age of six months of age;

(c) whether or not the current advice given by the CMO needs to be amended in the light of these findings;

(d) whether any other safeguards are necessary. ³³

5.216 SEAC expressed concern that, in relation to the Government's request for advice, they 'were expected to produce top class scientific opinions in a rush. This was an unrealistic expectation.' SEAC discussed the pathogenesis experiment and concluded: ³⁴

. . . that the theoretical risk of infection of man via food derived from infected calves is minuscule if it occurs at all but information on calves is still very limited and as the experiment is still in progress and further information is expected it will be necessary to monitor these results carefully to see if this basic conclusion is correct and to see whether further action is needed...

It is also noted in relation to these conclusions that at this stage one cannot give a definitive answer. There is a theoretical risk and Government could respond by a limited SBO ban for calves to exclude the intestines. The Committee was also concerned that other tissues might carry infectivity and be used for human food but there was no evidence of this at the moment. The situation should be carefully monitored. ³⁵

5.217 In a joint statement to the Inquiry members of SEAC discussed this conclusion:

The results were preliminary and we were uncertain of the relevance of the very high exposure used in the experiment to the control of the epidemic. If intestines represented a risk to the human food chain from normally reared calves it must be minuscule. However, although we thought that no action was called for, we realised that those in government would have to respond to other than scientific opinions. ³⁶

5.218 Mr Meldrum and Mr Eddy met with the CMO on 26 June 1994. Mr Meldrum described the meeting in his statement to us:

Mr Eddy, Mr Bradley and I attended lengthy meetings over the weekend with the CMO at which the CMO explained his concerns about the findings of the pathogenesis study and that the DH wished to get advice from SEAC. The CMO was anxious to make a statement as soon as possible and wished to avoid any suggestion of there being a delay in dealing with the information and taking any necessary action to protect public health. He therefore went through the pathogenesis study in detail and reviewed our present knowledge of the epidemiology of BSE. ³⁷

5.219 Mr Eddy said in his statement to us:

I . . . attended a meeting on 26 June 1994 with CMO, CVO and other MAFF and DH officials. At that meeting the CMO concluded that he would be advising Ministers that the distal ileum and the thymus from calves should be proscribed as SBO. Those present including Mr Haddon, the CVO, Mr Bridges (DH) and I agreed with this conclusion. ³⁸

5.220 Sir Kenneth Calman said in his statement, although not specifically referring to the above meeting, 'My recollection was that the evidence seemed clear that offal from calves needed to be banned, but that beef and veal were safe'. ³⁹

5.221 Mr Meldrum reported the meeting the next day at a meeting with Mrs Shephard, Mr Soames, Mr Packer, Mr Capstick, Mr Eddy, Mr Rossington and others on the experiment results. ⁴⁰ The CMO was 'clearly worried, and believed that we must be ultra-cautious, and was tending to the view that the SBO ban should be extended to include calves' intestines'. ⁴¹

5.222 Mr Eddy noted that since the SEAC meeting 'further checks had been carried out, and it was clear that the ileum was not used for human consumption in the United Kingdom'. ⁴² Mrs Shephard said that SEAC's findings 'were in fact inconclusive, but this issue would not be looked at rationally by the public'. ⁴³

5.223 Mr Rossington pointed out that a potential ban on calves' SBO would have 'a serious effect on the export of calves, and a knock-on effect on the price of beef in the UK and therefore on intervention'. The Minister would need to be 'persuaded that there was a scientific public health case before taking any action'. ⁴⁴

5.224 The Minister, Mrs Shephard, was recorded as responding:

. . . where public health was concerned, trade was the least important consideration. If the CMO advised that action should be taken, she would have to follow his advice. It was important in any case to look beyond the immediate implications: it would be of no help to the trade if confidence in the industry was lost totally. ⁴⁵

5.225 Later that day Mrs Shepherd met with Dr Calman, DH and MAFF officials to discuss the action to be taken in response to the results of the BSE pathogenesis experiment. The note of the meeting records that Mrs Shephard opened 'by emphasising the importance of MAFF and Department of Health working together as closely as possible in relation to BSE'. ⁴⁶ Dr Calman advised:

. . . that the results of the pathogenesis experiment were difficult and sensitive; the science was not complete so there was a degree of uncertainty. This in itself created a potential problem of public perception. ⁴⁷

5.226 Dr Calman's conclusions on the action to be taken on the basis of the results of the pathogenesis experiment were recorded:

. . . First, for all calves slaughtered between two and six months, intestines and thymus should be removed. There was no scientific evidence to justify removal of spleen, tonsils and spinal cord. For calves under two months going to human consumption, the same conditions should apply, though calves under two months which died on farm would not need removal of intestines and thymus, but if rendered should not be used for human consumption. ⁴⁸

5.227 He noted that 'the decisions reached could be justified on the basis of science'. ⁴⁹

5.228 The reason behind the decision to include thymus was explained in a press release issued by Dr Calman and Mr Meldrum on 30 June:

Although no finding of infectivity has been made in the bovine thymus this is an organ which is sold for human consumption as sweetbreads, and which is a permitted ingredient of meat products. Inclusion in the definition of specified bovine offals will ensure that any risk of transmission of BSE by this route is closed off. ⁵⁰

5.229 In his written statement to the Inquiry, Dr Calman discussed the reason underlying his conclusions:

The Department of Health has always adopted a precautionary approach in relation to public health issues arising from BSE in their deliberations with MAFF.

On occasions this has necessarily resulted in differences of opinion. An example of this included the extension of the SBO ban in 1994 to include the removal of the intestines and thymus of calves under 6 months of age. MAFF argued against the extension of the ban as an additional expense to the industry not justified by scientific evidence. I and the Department of Health, notwithstanding the advice of SEAC, argued strongly for an extension of the ban which was ultimately accepted by Ministers. ⁵¹

5.230 The reaction by the media to the development is discussed later in this chapter (see paragraphs 5.388-5.390).

5.231 On the same day, MAFF forwarded letters to the operators of all slaughterhouses recorded as handling calves, informing them of the proposed extension to the SBO Regulations on calves. It noted that as there was an obligation under the Food Safety Act 1990 formally to consult organisations affected by the proposed amendments to the Regulations, there would be a delay in its implementation. Although the ban was only a 'precautionary measure' the letter stated:

. . . the issue will generate a great deal of public interest. Ministers have no doubt that you, and other slaughterhouses which handle calves, will wish to reassure the public by putting the new arrangements into effect immediately, on a voluntary basis until the Regulations can be amended. ⁵²

5.232 Following public consultation, on 2 November 1994 the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations ⁵³ came into force in England and Wales, extending the definition of SBO to:

(i) the thymus and intestines of an animal, two months or over but not more than six months of age, which had died or been slaughtered in the United Kingdom;

(ii) the thymus and intestines of an animal, under two months of age, which had been slaughtered in the United Kingdom. ⁵⁴

5.233 The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994 ⁵⁵ came into force on the same day. The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 did not come into force until 28 April 1995. ⁵⁶ For further information see vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

5.234 Cabinet consideration of this matter, and public reaction, are discussed at the end of this chapter.