Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
7. Human health developments from January 1996 to 20 March 1996
Minister's questions
SEAC meeting: 5 January 1996
SEAC meeting: 1 February 1996

7.5 The background events in December 1995 which led to questions being put to SEAC in January 1996 are described in detail in Chapter 6. In a meeting on 7 December 1995, MAFF Ministers had agreed that Mr Thomas Eddy (Head of Animal Health (Disease Control) Division, MAFF) would draft questions to put to SEAC with a view to eliciting answers that would be suitable for publication. ¹ It was hoped that these would reassure the public that British beef was safe to eat. The questions were prepared by Mr Eddy and provided to SEAC for discussion at its first meeting in January.

7.6 In the interim, on 14 December 1995, MAFF held a press conference with members of SEAC to discuss recent developments in respect of BSE. The MLC, which had been allowed to film the press conference, requested and was granted additional interviews with Professor John Pattison, Chairman of SEAC, and the MAFF Minister, Mr Douglas Hogg, for use in a forthcoming MLC advertisement.

7.7 On the following day, in a routine meeting between MAFF and the MLC, the MLC showed to MAFF the television advertisement footage obtained the previous day and requested that it be allowed to use it in its forthcoming campaign. However, MAFF refused permission, fearing that Professor Pattison's independence would be compromised by his appearance in a television advertisement put out by the MLC.

7.8 On 22 December 1995, Mr Richard Packer (MAFF Permanent Secretary) met representatives of the MLC to discuss the events surrounding the press conference and the Commission's proposed campaign to promote British beef. ² Mr Colin Maclean, Director General of the MLC, has explained that it was during this meeting that MAFF revealed its intention to put certain questions to SEAC for the purpose of meeting public and media concerns. Mr Maclean told us:

MAFF did reveal that it had already decided to deal with the issue by putting some succinct questions to SEAC for its meeting on 5 January 1996 and hoped that equally succinct answers would emerge which could then be used for public information purposes. I believe that Richard Packer ran through (although not verbatim) the list of questions which MAFF then had in mind. I believe that these were jotted down by the Chairman of the MLC's public affairs company. ³

7.9 On 3 January 1996, Mr Maclean wrote to Dr Richard Kimberlin, an independent TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) consultant and member of SEAC. ⁴ He informed Dr Kimberlin of the outcome of the MAFF press conference on 14 December 1995. ⁵ He also referred to an earlier attempt to contact Dr Kimberlin by telephone just prior to Christmas 1995 and stated:

The reason for my telephone call . . . was to alert you to questions that MAFF will pose to SEAC at its next meeting. These questions arise following a debacle when MAFF eventually prohibited me from using Professor Pattison on a TV advert made around the material at the MAFF press conference. MAFF was concerned about compromising Professor Pattison's independence. I therefore demanded a meeting with Richard Packer at which I sought answers to three questions:

The independent scientists (most of whom are on SEAC) are the main source for the reassurance of consumers. Who am I allowed to use?

How am I allowed to use them?

What is MAFF doing to help give confidence to education/catering authorities where schools have banned the use of beef?

The result was that MAFF is happy for us to use anything in the public domain (including the press conference), would prefer us to use newspapers/the written word (rather than TV) and is mounting a programme to tackle the schools issue. It therefore recognises the need to get short, unequivocal, answers from SEAC wherever possible.

7.10 Mr Maclean then listed the six questions that he understood were to be put to SEAC:

We agree that we need succinct answers to these questions and my colleagues in our PR company . . . have drafted the sort of answers (Appendix A) they would like to see (although they cannot put words into SEAC's mouth!) However, this should give you some feel for what we would initially like before you face the questions in SEAC. Anything you can do to help get crisp answers would be a big help. ⁶

7.11 Appendix A of Mr Maclean's letter outlined the following questions and answers:

1. Q. What is the cause of CJD and BSE?

A. We support the theory that BSE was caused or stimulated by ruminant feed containing scrapie being used in cattle fodder.

. . .

2. Q. Is there a link between BSE and CJD?

A. Our firm belief is that BSE is not a disease that affects humans. Also, that CJD does not affect animals. There is no scientific evidence to suggest a link between the two diseases.

3. Q. Is beef safe to eat?

A. Yes. We have no doubt about the fact that the beef on sale in the high street is safe to eat.

. . .

4. Q. Are beef products safe to eat?

A. Yes. The Government has banned specified offal from the manufacture of all beef products and controls are rigorously applied. Beef products on sale in the high street are therefore perfectly safe to eat.

. . .

5. Q. Are the protective measures for the public sufficient?

A. Yes. The precautionary measures established by the Government protect the public from any remote, theoretical risk from BSE even though no link has been demonstrated between BSE and CJD.

6. Q. What further research should we (the Government) be doing?

. . .

Unequivocal 'yes' answers are preferred for 3, 4 and 5.

7.12 Mr Maclean wrote that 'an ideal way forward would be for SEAC members to write a letter saying that they have not changed their eating habits . . .' and suggested that Dr Kimberlin get them to send the following draft 'Letter to The Times':

The recent media-led hype about BSE has not changed our eating habits. We continue to enjoy British beef and the occasional beef burger and other beef products as we have always done.

Our firm belief is that BSE is not a disease that affects humans. Also, that CJD does not affect animals. There is no scientific evidence to suggest a link between the two diseases. Furthermore, the precautionary measures established last year by the Government clearly protect the public from any remote, theoretical risk from BSE. ⁷

SEAC meeting: 5 January 1996

7.13 At SEAC's meeting on 5 January, the Minister's questions formed one of the items discussed. Mr Eddy explained to SEAC that the Minister of Agriculture had asked for its views on a number of questions with a view to publishing the Committee's answers. The nine questions posed were eventually set out as follows:

1. Is beef safe to eat?
2. Are beef products, eg, offal such as liver, and hamburgers, sausages and meat pies, safe to eat?
3. Do the protective measures in place fully meet all the recommendations that SEAC has made?
4. Is BSE now declining?
5. What is the cause of BSE in cattle?
6. Why has the BSE epidemic continued?
7. What is the cause of CJD in man?
8. Is there a link between CJD and BSE?
9. What further research needs to be done? ⁸

7.14 The Committee agreed that it would be sensible to put together replies and that individual members might be asked to give some thought to individual questions with a view to circulating draft replies before the next meeting. The Chairman advised that it would be necessary to have a further meeting at the end of January to take these questions forward. ⁹

7.15 Mr Maclean's letter to Dr Kimberlin dated 3 January 1996 (see paragraphs 7.9-7.12) was not mentioned at the meeting.

SEAC meeting: 1 February 1996

7.16 By SEAC's next meeting, on 1 February, some of the members had prepared draft answers to the Minister's questions. Before considering the questions and the draft answers prepared by members:

the Chairman wished to clarify what the Minister actually wanted: whether it is SEAC's answers to the Minister or SEAC's answers on behalf of the Minister. Mr Eddy explained the background to the request. In December last, at a time of extensive media interest the Minister recognised that some consumers and journalists simply do not believe Ministers or officials. The Minister therefore wanted the Committee's views, in a publishable form to issue as a press release. ¹⁰

7.17 The meeting had time to discuss only the first five questions. We shall confine our consideration to the first three, which related particularly to the safety of beef.

7.18 'Question 1. Is beef safe to eat?' had been addressed by Professor Jeffrey Almond, a Professor of Microbiology and member of SEAC from 1995, and Dr Kimberlin. Professor Almond's draft answer stated:

The Minister should be made aware that this is not a simple question to which we can give a yes/no answer with 100% confidence. Statements such as 'there is no conceivable risk' should be avoided because they cannot be scientifically substantiated.

As discussed at the last meeting, spinal cord is not completely removed and much of it may be spread across carcasses at the sectioning stage. We cannot therefore be confident that all 'beef' is free from contamination from this high titre source. It is against this background we need to consider the question.

7.19 His answer then gave a synopsis of the scientific data demonstrating and supporting the 'uncertainty' he had referred to. He added:

We should not take the view that beef is safe until proven dangerous. In my view to do so would be wrong ethically and morally.

To do the opposite, i.e. to assume that beef is dangerous until proven safe is also difficult because the corollary would be the destruction of the national herd. The cost of this would run into tens of billions(?) and even then there would be a chance that BSE would not disappear completely (eg, because of contamination of pasture land, etc). Such a position could not be justified when we know that

(a) there is no evidence that BSE will transmit to humans

(b) we have been eating scrapie-infected sheep meat for at least two hundred years without ill effect.

Both of the two italicised propositions above are unpalatable. Therefore, the only practical option is to adopt the middle ground (as Southwood commendably did) which is to assume a risk, ie, that all carcasses are infected, and then minimise that risk by removal of SBOs.

7.20 Dr Kimberlin's draft answer stated:

Yes. We have no doubts that the beef on sale in the high street is safe to eat. ¹¹

7.21 The Committee agreed that a positive response to this question was dependent on full implementation of the SBO Regulations. John Collinge, Professor of Molecular Neurogenetics and member of SEAC, agreed to draft the response and pass it to Professor Almond, Dr Kimberlin and Mr Raymond Bradley, former head of Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL) Research Department, now BSE consultant and member of SEAC, for comment. ¹²

7.22 'Question 2. Are beef products, eg, offal such as liver, and hamburgers, sausages and meat pies, safe to eat?' had also been addressed by Professor Almond and Dr Kimberlin. Professor Almond's draft answer stated:

To the best of my knowledge, there is no particular risk associated with liver, kidney etc. although I would like to know the reasoning behind the recent Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group recommendation that liver from an infected animal should be handled only under category II conditions, ie, gloves, lamina flow hood etc. ¹³

As regards, hamburgers, sausages, meat pies, these are likely to have carried a higher potential risk than prime beef in that they were more likely to contain portions of spinal cord that had been improperly removed. The recent ban on the use of the spinal column for MRM goes some way to alleviate this concern.

7.23 Dr Kimberlin's draft answer was:

Yes. The only tissues from which there might be a theoretical risk due to BSE are the so called specified bovine offals (SBOs): but these tissues have been banned from all human food products since January 1990. ¹⁴

7.24 The Committee agreed that the answer should be: 'If specified bovine offals are removed completely there should be no greater risk from these foods than from prime beef.' ¹⁵

7.25 'Question 3. Do the protective measures in place fully meet all the recommendations that SEAC has made?' was also answered by Professor Almond and Dr Kimberlin. Professor Almond commented:

In light of our discussions last time (and my own 'inspection') this is clearly not the case. Some abattoirs are not effectively removing the spinal cord. They continue to smear much of this tissue across other parts of the carcass during sectioning and butchering.

Being somewhat sensitive to precious comments about scientists in ivory towers and the realities of the shop floor, I am not sure how to remedy this situation. We should, however, explore all possibilities for improving current methods.

7.26 Dr Kimberlin's draft answer was 'Yes'. ¹⁶

7.27 It is instructive to note the responses drafted to Question 8, which SEAC did not have time to discuss. This question - 'Is there a link between CJD and BSE?' - was addressed by Professor Peter Smith, Epidemiologist and member of SEAC from 1996, and Dr Kimberlin. Professor Smith's draft stated:

It is not known if the agent that causes BSE can cross the species barrier into man and cause CJD. At present, the epidemiological and other evidence available does not establish that there is a link between CJD and BSE.

In general, it is easier to establish a positive link than to prove that there is no such link, particularly for a disease for which the time between exposure to the causative agent and the onset of disease is unknown, and may be many years.

7.28 It then outlined the trends in incidence of CJD, noting that:

The apparent excess risk among cattle farmers is compatible with BSE being a cause of CJD, but other explanations are possible. It has been reported, for example, that in other European countries, without BSE, cattle farmers have a higher incidence of CJD.

7.29 In conclusion it stated:

There has been an overall increase in the annual number of cases of CJD recorded over the last 25 years and particularly in the period since 1990. This increase has been most marked in older age groups (60 years and above) . . .

The occurrence of several cases of CJD [in people] aged less than 30 years in the last two years is an unusual phenomenon . . . Four or five unusual cases does not constitute proof that BSE causes CJD, but the observation is consistent with what might be expected if such a link exists.

There appears to be an excess of cases of CJD among those who may have been occupationally exposed to the BSE agent. The number of such cases is also small and cannot be regarded as proof of a link, but again the observation is what might be expected if such a link exists. ¹⁷

7.30 Dr Kimberlin's draft answered the question in the following way:

There is no scientific evidence that establishes a causal link between the two diseases although this continues to be investigated by the CJD Surveillance Unit. Our firm belief is that existing precautionary measures are sufficient to protect the public from any theoretical risks due to BSE. ¹⁸

The exercise of answering Mr Hogg's questions was never completed. It was overtaken by events in March which we discuss below.