Your response: from Mel Painter

Do you represent a special interest group?

No

Comment:

General: Any removal or reduction of controls on feeding any MBM, SRM to any other animal that may be consumed by Humans must be the subject of a "safety case" by those wishing bring this about. This case must demonstrate that "no change in risk" from the current position (which I understand is not risk free). In my view there can be NO case for increasing the risk of BSE in humans just to allow increase profit margins (there doesn't seem to be any other driver).

Paragraph 53 talks about removing controls if diagnostic tests for TSE were available. This seems ENTIRELY wrong as BSE will return and infected meat will get into the food chain by fraud, and death result.

Paragraph 60 - the "industry" will obviously employ all means to use all parts of animals. Pig MBM should not be allowed to be fed to poultry. If this was allowed it shows we have learnt nothing - we don't know the effect and it's too late when we find there is a transmission route.

Like most of the public (I believe) I will not accept a cost benefit argument to feed "non-natural/animal" products to farm animals. There is no need for this - it is quite feasible to feed animals on non-meat containing feed - the only motive to do this is profit. There is no (negligible) benefit to ME who has to eat the meat. I now do not (yet) eat beef. If I suspect unsafe practices for other farm animals I will stop eating these as well (and many people will behave similarly). The adoption of practices which are perceived to be unsafe will only lead to the reduction of meat consumption.