Meeting of the Stakeholder Group: 14 September 2000

Held at Cumberland Hotel, Marble Arch, London

Present

Chairman: Sir John Krebs FSA Chairman

Ms Suzi Leather FSA Deputy Chair
Mr Geoffrey Podger FSA Chief Executive
Mr David Taylor Head of Veterinary Public Health Unit, FSA
Mr Peter Hewson Veterinary Public Health Unit, FSA
Mr Mike Dawson Veterinary Public Health Unit, FSA and FSA Technical Adviser to SEAC
Dr Eileen Rubery Judge Institute of Management Studies
Miss Barbara Richards Meat Hygiene Division, FSA and Review Secretary
Mr David Maunder British Meat Federation
Mr Adam Muggoch British Meat Manufacturers' Association
Dr Susan Baker Consumers Association
Mr Robert Voyle Farmers' Union of Wales
Mr Mike Attenborough Meat and Livestock Commission
Mr Robin Simpson National Consumer Council
Mr Neil Cutler National Farmers' Union
Mr Peter Bevan Small Abattoirs Federation
Mrs Jill Nute The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Professor Peter Biggs The Royal Society
Mr John Rankin Ulster Farmers' Union
Mr Stewart Johnston Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland
Mr Alan Harvey Department of Health
Ms Sue Eades Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Mr Gwyn Jones National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department
Ms Jen Stokes Office of Science and Technology
Dr Martin Donaghy Scottish Executive Health Department
Mr Martin Morgan Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department

Introduction and apologies for absence

1. Sir John welcomed members of the Stakeholder Group and the public observers. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the first draft of the review report. This had been developed by the secretariat on the basis of the papers discussed at the two previous meetings of the Stakeholder Group. The FSA had worked with the external experts named at the earlier meetings and with Dr Gérard Pascal, Chairman of the EU Scientific Steering Committee and from the French National Agricultural Research Institute. This helped to ensure continuity in thinking from earlier discussions. Sir John explained that he proposed to operate on the same basis as at the earlier meetings and take questions from observers as well as from the members of the Stakeholder Group.

2. Apologies for absence had been received from Mr Chris Lawson (FSA), Mr Bob Bansback (Meat and Livestock Commission), Mr John Chadwick (Small Abattoirs Federation), Mr Andrew Chitty (British Meat Federation), Mr David Dickson (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department), Dr Henry Fell (British Medical Association), Mr Chris Gilbert-Wood (British Retail Consortium), Dr John Godfrey (Consumers in Europe Group), Mr Richard Hughes (National Assembly for Wales Health Department), Dr Liz Mitchell (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Northern Ireland), Dr Peter Nash (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Mrs Pat Sellers (Office Science and Technology) and Mr Jim Walker (National Farmers' Union of Scotland). Following the meeting apologies were also received from Mr Alan Lawrence (UK Renderers' Association) and Mr Bob Tyler (National Federation of Meat and Food Traders) who had been unable to reach the meeting due to the fuel shortage.

Matters arising from the minutes of the 18 July meeting and correspondence received

3. The minutes of the last meeting had been circulated to stakeholders in draft for comment. The final version had been issued on 1 September and was being placed on the FSA website. It was noted that the fourth line of paragraph 8 of the minutes should refer to 'iatrogenic' rather than 'classical' vCJD.

4. Sir John noted that the papers commissioned at paragraphs 16, 19, 37 and 41 had been circulated. Mr Muggoch (British Meat Manufacturers' Association) asked the date of the study reported in the first paragraph of paper Background/9 (on maternal transmission of BSE). Mr Dawson (FSA) undertook to check. (Comment: The date has been confirmed as 1988-1996.) Ms Wheatley (from the floor) asked whether the same study had considered veterinary medicines as a source of infection. Mr Dawson confirmed that it had not.

5. There were no other matters arising from the minutes.

6. Sir John briefly listed the correspondence received since the last meeting and noted that copies had been made available by the Review secretariat. They were also available on the FSA website. There was no discussion of the correspondence.

7. Sir John announced that the FSA had set up a new interactive website at www.bsereview.org.uk on which all relevant details of the review would be placed. People would be able to register comments on the draft report as well as be notified of details of future meetings. A link to the site had been included on the FSA website.

Draft report of the review

8. Sir John noted a few small errors in the draft: in the fifth and eighth lines of paragraph 35, 'principle' should read 'principal'; in the third line of paragraph 44, the cross-reference should be to paragraph 37 and not 36; and in the fifth line of paragraph 66, the cross-reference should be to paragraph 25 and not 26. It was also noted that in the final line of paragraph 72a, 'stains' should read 'strains'. He then invited the meeting to discuss the draft report according to the sections listed in the agenda.

Introduction, risk and uncertainty (paragraphs 1-6)

9. Dr Baker (Consumers Association) commended the drafting panel for introducing the uncertainties so early in the report.

10. Mr Body (from the floor) referred to the section in paragraph 5 that suggested that evidence that the vCJD epidemic was due to exposure to the BSE agent via the food chain was circumstantial. He argued that the evidence was compelling. Although it could be proved only by feeding contaminated material direct to humans, it had been accepted by members of the CJD Surveillance Unit (at inquests of vCJD victims) as being beyond reasonable doubt on a legal test of probability. Mr Body thought the report should give a fuller expression of the issue of proof. Sir John saw a need to be cautious about how 'circumstantial' should be expressed. The review was approaching the issue from a scientific rather than a legal assessment.

11. Dr Donaghy (Scottish Executive Health Department) suggested it should be made clear that vCJD was always fatal.

12. Mr Simpson (National Consumer Council) thought the precautionary principle should be amplified in paragraph 6. It was being used in the context of uncertainty and it would probably never be known whether the costs were proportionate to the numbers of lives saved. Sir John preferred to use the term 'precautionary approach' rather than 'precautionary principle' as he felt the latter term had become somewhat devalued due to conflicting usage. He asked the secretariat to consider all these points when revising the draft.

Action: Secretariat

vCJD (paragraphs 7-22)

13. Sir John summarised these paragraphs and noted that he did not think the report should try to be specific about the size of the vCJD epidemic. Mr Harvey (Department of Health) endorsed this view, pointing out that the figures quoted in paragraph 15 assumed that only people of one genotype were susceptible. This was not known. Sir John agreed that this point should be drawn out more specifically in paragraph 13.

Action: Secretariat

14. Dr Donaghy (Scottish Executive Health Department) suggested the text in paragraph 12 should be expanded to include details of age range and rate of increase in the size of the epidemic. Ms Leather (FSA Deputy Chair) wondered about including occupational exposure details. Mr Body (from the floor) mentioned an inquest taking place that day of a vCJD victim who had been an abattoir worker. It seemed that in that case the link to BSE had been dietary rather than occupational exposure as the incubation period had been too short to be consistent with the victim's occupation.

15. Mr Blanchfield (from the floor) suggested that the figures given should relate to date of onset rather than date of death. Since there was a wide variation in length of incubation period, figures relating to death could be misleading. Mrs Turner (CJD Support Network - from the floor) thought this was not appropriate as it was very difficult to pinpoint the onset of symptoms. Families of victims often said (with hindsight) that symptoms had appeared before a doctor had been approached. Sir John undertook to explore this issue with SEAC.

Action: Sir John Krebs/Secretariat

16. Professor Biggs (The Royal Society) questioned whether the reference to BSE in the final section of Table 1 was entirely accurate and also whether BSE should be shown against Man at the top of the table. Sir John asked the secretariat to look again at this.

Action: Secretariat

17. Mr Body (from the floor) suggested that the second half of paragraph 16 might have to be redrafted in the light of the Phillip's Inquiry report if current vCJD cases were not ascribed to exposure to the BSE agent before the current controls were in place.

18. In a discussion on the issue of 'willingness to pay', Mr Simpson (National Consumer Council) expressed doubt about whether the concept could be used in the usual way in this context. The estimates of the size of the epidemic were so variable that it was not really realistic. Mr Body (from the floor) suggested it should be related to the numbers of people likely to have been exposed to infection but Sir John pointed out that, given the remit of the review, it would have to be related to the numbers being exposed now. Dr Rubery (Judge Institute) said that it was still possible to make a judgement on willingness to pay in the presence of uncertainty about the numbers.

19. Ms Wheatley (from the floor) thought there was massive evidence of willingness to pay, given all the burdens now placed on farmers to keep detailed movement and other records on cattle for traceability purposes. It was important that the pharmaceutical production chain should be controlled as well as the food chain. Farmers should be given more information about the extent to which cattle were destined for use in pharmaceutical manufacture rather than the food chain. Mr Neil Cutler (National Farmers' Union) was not aware of pressure from farmers in general for this. Mrs Nute (The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) pointed out that there were already many rules controlling pharmaceutical production.

20. Sir John sensed there was no objection to having a section in the report along these lines and would ask the secretariat to have another look at it. Mr Simpson offered to try to write to the secretariat with some constructive suggestions.
Action: Secretariat/Mr Simpson

BSE (paragraphs 23-34)

21. Sir John explained that the draft deliberately did not include detailed discussion about the origins of BSE. Although this was relevant, it was not central to the review. Mr Body (from the floor) suggested that research by Professor Morris from New Zealand (mentioned on Day 111 of the Phillips Inquiry evidence), which was soon to be published, might be relevant to be mentioned in paragraph 23. Mr Body also suggested that the reference at the end of paragraph 23 to 'growth hormones' should be altered to read 'use in cattle of pituitary growth hormone'. Sir John asked the secretariat to check both these points.

Action: Secretariat

The Over Thirty Month (OTM) Rule (paragraphs 35-45)

22. Mr Neil Cutler (National Farmers' Union) suggested that the reference in paragraph 40 to discrepancies in cattle passports should indicate whether or not the errors related to birthdates. This could be checked with the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS). Mr Muggoch (British Meat Manufacturers' Association) reported that the discrepancy was sometimes only the difference between a letter O and a figure 0. Mr Voyle (Farmers' Union of Wales) thought the new cattle tagging system should eliminate such problems. Mrs Downes (Meat Hygiene Service - from the floor), referring to paragraph 37, emphasised that every animal was physically checked as the passport system was not infallible. Sir John commented that consumers would want to have confidence in the accuracy of the Cattle Tracing System if passports were to be relied upon for enforcement of the OTM rule.

23. Mr Kevin Taylor (from the floor) pointed out that the survey of OTMS cattle brains mentioned in paragraph 42 had been of brains from cattle of 5 years old and over. If the sample had been taken from animals aged over 24 months the percentage of those with signs of BSE would have been much smaller. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) suggested that the review of 5 year old cattle proposed at paragraph 45 could be replaced by an earlier one of 4 year old animals from which the relevant information could be extrapolated. Sir John agreed to consider this.

Action: Sir John Krebs/Secretariat

24. Ms Leather (FSA Deputy Chair) thought the sentence about casualty animals at the end of paragraph 45 was rather obscure. Mr Hewson (FSA) explained that animals unfit to travel to slaughterhouses could be killed on farm and transported as carcases. The OTM rule applied to them and ensured protection against BSE-infected animals entering the food chain. Sir John stressed that if the OTM rule were to be relaxed there would need to be a robust diagnostic system for casualty animals. This should be clarified in the report.

Action: Secretariat

25. Mr Bevan (Small Abattoirs Federation) drew attention to the anomaly of farmers being allowed to slaughter their own OTM animals for their own consumption (so-called 'private kills'). Miss Richards (Review secretary) explained that this related to the complicated definition of 'sale' under the Food Safety Act 1990. What Mr Bevan had reported was true if farmers slaughtered the animals themselves, but if they arranged for them to be slaughtered elsewhere and the meat returned to them, the OTM rule did apply. Mrs Nute (The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) reported that the RCVS had raised their concerns about this situation with the Chief Medical Officer two years ago. Ms Wheatley (from the floor) argued that farmers should be allowed to continue to consume beef from their own animals. 'Private kills' were a human right.

26. Mr Maunder (British Meat Federation), who had served last year on the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group, said that Group had also debated on farm slaughter. Issues relating to Specified Risk Material also applied. Mr Hewson explained that in those circumstances the vertebral column was not allowed to be split so the spinal cord would not be exposed. Enforcement of the rules was the responsibility of Local Authorities. There was no obligation to report on farm slaughter to them but the BCMS now required farmers to account for the disposal of all their cattle. Mr Voyle (Farmers' Union of Wales) argued that there was only a very small amount of on farm slaughter of cattle. Most 'private kills' were carried out at small slaughterhouses where there were chilling facilities and the SRM could be properly dealt with. Mr Muggoch (British Meat Manufacturers' Association) thought this mostly related to butchers buying live animals and having them slaughtered in licensed plants for retail sale. Sir John noted that the report should mention the issue once the facts had been established.

Action: Secretariat

Specified Risk Material (SRM) (paragraphs 46-54)

27. Mr Taylor (from the floor) suggested an amendment to the end of paragraph 47. Since Germany had, in fact, had 6 cases of BSE (all reported to be in imported animals), the final sentence should refer to cases of BSE in 'indigenous' cattle. Sir John accepted the suggestion and noted that the sentence had been included at Dr Gérard Pascal's suggestion.

Action: Secretariat

28. Mr Boltz (from the floor) queried the reference in paragraph 46 to the fact that the UK would have to relax its SRM controls to comply with the new EU rules. He had heard that the equivalent French legislation would go beyond EU requirements. Sir John pointed out that the French legislation was not yet made. The French equivalent of FSA had made such a proposal but he doubted it would be agreed by the EU Commission. In negotiating the EU rules the UK had been unsuccessful in achieving inclusion of a provision which would allow Member States to maintain existing, more stringent rules. Ms Leather (FSA Deputy Chair) suggested the draft should be more explicit at paragraph 46 in identifying the consumer benefits accruing from adoption of the new EU rules. This was agreed.

Action: Secretariat

29. In a discussion about the adequacy of the SRM controls in the event of BSE being found in sheep, there was general support for the FSA's approach of openness. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) agreed that one should not revert to past practice. The FSA's approach had so far been successful in terms of the public response to it, but it may need to be developed more carefully in relation to the export market. Mr Maunder (British Meat Federation) pointed out the heavy responsibility of the FSA, particularly in respect of exports. The ewe market had already been damaged. It was right to be open but the FSA must be very careful to put the issues into context. Dr Baker (Consumers Association) fully endorsed the approach of openness and maintained that it was important for the uncertainties to be exposed. Mr Body (from the floor) argued that a policy of denial had only served to make the situation for the industry worse in 1996 than would otherwise have been the case.

30. Mr Maclean (from the floor) was concerned that the wording at the end of paragraph 49 implied there may be no market potential for the sheep industry if BSE were found. Everything appeared to depend on a contingency plan. Mr Podger (FSA) explained that the FSA would be asking what other alternatives there might be which would protect public health. If BSE were ever found in sheep, all relevant information (such as the availability of diagnostic tests) would have to be taken into account at the time. Mr Attenborough (Meat and Livestock Commission) promised to write to the FSA about contingency planning. He welcomed the approach to diagnostic tests in paragraph 53 of the draft.

31. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) asked whether, given the length of time scientists had been looking, there would ever be a definitive answer about whether BSE was in sheep. Sir John noted that the current mouse panel studies being used in the research related to only a small number of sheep. If a low prevalence of disease was to be detected, a large scale rapid screening test was needed so that a large sample could be tested.

32. Dr Maddocks (from the floor) asked whether the FSA was proposing further investment in research. She pointed out that the original amount devoted to research had not been proportionate to the size of the problem. Sir John maintained that the overall research 'envelope' was quite large (as was noted in paragraph 11 of the draft). He would rather prioritise spending within the 'envelope'.

33. Mr Long (from the floor) asked whether other animals might have been infected by environmental transmission. Sir John said there may be some evidence of environmental transmission for scrapie but animal health issues were not really within the scope of this review. Ms Wheatley (from the floor) enquired whether sheep vaccines (derived from bovine material) might play a part. She agreed to write to Sir John on the point.

The feed ban (paragraphs 55-62)

34. Mr Blanchfield (from the floor) questioned whether, in light of the recently publicised research by Professor Collinge, the reference in paragraph 59 to 'within a single species' should instead relate to inter-species recycling. Sir John suggested that the review should await SEAC's consideration later in the month of the Collinge research before any changes were considered. Mr Body (from the floor) pointed out that the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (chaired by Sir Richard Southwood) might be relevant. Sir John asked the Secretariat to check.

Action: Secretariat

35. Mr Taylor (from the floor) suggested that the word 'trigger' in paragraph 59 should be replaced by 'amplify' as any new TSE would have to already have been triggered by inter-species recycling first. Sir John agreed.

Action: Secretarial

36. Mr Attenborough (Meat and Livestock Commission), referring to paragraph 60 on pigs and chickens, argued that further experiments were needed. Mr Maclean (from the floor) pointed out that the prohibition on feeding pig MBM to poultry did not apply in the rest of Europe which put UK industry at a disadvantage.

37. Mr Maclean also pointed out that paragraph 61 (on tallow) was incorrect. What it was proposing was already permitted, with the exception of tallow from SRM. There were also implications for soap manufacture. Sir John agreed to look at this section again.
Action: Secretariat

38. Dr Donaghy (Scottish Executive Health Department) asked whether the FSA would monitor the conditions listed in paragraph 62 as being necessary before any change in the feed ban was considered, or whether they were simply suggestions. Mr Podger (FSA) confirmed that it would but mentioned that there were no specific mechanisms for doing this. Sir John agreed that this should be made explicit in the report.

Action: Secretariat

39. In a discussion on the proposed requirement at paragraph 62(iii) that stringent and enforcement segregation procedures should be demonstrated to be in place, Mr Blanchfield (from the floor) argued that this was asking the impossible. Mr Maunder (British Meat Federation) maintained that this could be done in some poultry plants but it would have to be properly policed. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) agreed that there were many single species pig or poultry farms where cross-contamination might be less of a problem. Mr Voyle (Farmers Union of Wales) added that since the BSE crisis, separate mills for the production of ruminant feed and pig and poultry feed were already in operation. Mr Maclean (from the floor) agreed that parts of the poultry industry could probably deliver on this. Ms Eades (MAFF) suggested that relevant experience in other EU Member States such as the Republic of Ireland and Denmark should be examined before we proceeded further in this direction in the UK.

Action: Secretariat

40. Mr Maclean (from the floor) suggested that a fourth condition should be added to the list in paragraph 62. Given the sensible references in discussion to the fact that all the controls were 'interlocking', these suggestions for change were acceptable while the OTM rule was in place. A fourth condition should require BSE incidence in the UK to be below a certain level. Sir John agreed.

Action: Secretariat

41. Ms Leather (FSA Deputy Chair) suggested that a mention should also be made at paragraph 62 that, if the feed ban were relaxed, inclusion of MBM in feed should be labelled. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) argued that any such labelling should also be required on imported feed. Mr Muggoch (British Meat Manufacturers' Association) supported clear labelling of animal feed ingredients so that farmers knew what their animals were consuming. Mr Simpson (National Consumer Council) was uncomfortable with inclusion in the draft report of such a recommendation as it raised prematurely the possibility of MBM being incorporated in feed. Sir John undertook to ensure the issue was further considered by the FSA team before any amendments were made.

Action: Secretariat

42. In answer to a suggestion from Mr Long (from the floor), Sir John agreed that, since petfood was sometimes consumed by humans, there should be some reference to this. He noted, though, that petfood manufacturers were very stringent in their requirements.

Action: Secretariat

Mechanically recovered meat (paragraphs 63-65)

43. Dr Donaghy (Scottish Executive Health Department) thought traceability of MRM in meat products was an issue that should be addressed as MRM is difficult or impossible to detect if not labelled and its was not known where, historically, it had been used in the food chain. Mr Body (from the floor) quoted from a 1980 report on meat products by the Food Standards Committee which referred to the 'combination of MRM with other meat products'. He asked whether this had been widespread and whether it still occurred. Dr Rubery (Judge Institute) suggested that evidence for enforcement of the rules on MRM was also an important area that should be addressed in the report in the same way as other enforcement areas were commented on. Sir John agreed that the secretariat should look at this.

Action: Secretariat

44. Mr Blanchfield (from the floor) suggested that the last sentence of paragraph 64 should be amended to make clear that the prohibition on use of MRM from ruminant vertebral column protected against possible risk from infected sheep spinal cord rather than against any theoretical risk from BSE in sheep. Sir John agreed.

Action: Secretariat

Imports (paragraphs 66-69)

45. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) warmly welcomed the inclusion of this section of the draft report.

46. In discussion of how the list mentioned in the last sentence of paragraph 67 should be kept up to date, Mr Podger (FSA) suggested that that, while the FSA could do this, it would need help from other organisations. Ms Eades (MAFF) maintained that, rather than the UK Government undertaking this, the work of international organisations (such as the OIE and the EU Scientific Steering Committee) on the BSE status of third countries which was already underway should be used. This was agreed.

47. Mr Soul (MAFF ¿ from the floor) suggested that the Meat Hygiene Service might be able to assist with information about illegal imports. Dr Rubery (Judge Institute) thought it was more difficult to control imports of meat products than of carcase meat. Sir John agreed and suggested the report should include a reference to this.

Action: Secretariat

48. In answer to a question from Mr Body (from the floor) about the FSA's role in respect of imports, Mr Taylor (FSA) explained that the FSA was responsible for policy on food safety in respect of imports. The policy was enforced in cutting plants by the Meat Hygiene Service in respect of meat imports from EU Member States and by Port Health Authorities at the point of entry in respect of imports from third countries. Mr Maunder (British Meat Federation) suggested that retailers often specified the standards of imported meat products. Sir John explained that the FSA¿s role included making sure imported food presented no greater risk than domestically produced food. It was possible that it would be proposing more stringent country of origin labelling.

Costs (paragraphs 70-71)

49. Sir John wondered whether sufficient prominence had been given in the draft to social costs. He agreed with a suggestion from Mr Harvey (Department of Health) that the final sentence of paragraph 70 should form a separate paragraph. A mention should be added of the fact that, although these costs were difficult to quantify, they were still important.

Action: Secretariat

50. Mr Simpson (National Consumer Council) asked for the figures in Table 3 to be shown on a year by year basis. Mr Johnston (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, NI) asked that they should be amended to include Northern Ireland figures and Ms Leather (FSA Deputy Chair) suggested that EU reimbursement of any of the costs should also be shown. These suggestions were agreed.

Action: Secretariat

51. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) thought that the cost to farmers of the OTM rule should be included, although this was difficult to quantify. He undertook to look into this.

Action: Mr Cutler

52. It was generally agreed that the earlier section on 'willingness to pay' and proportionality of costs (paragraphs 19-22) would be better placed in this section.

Action: Secretariat

53. Mr Long, supported by Mr Body (both from the floor), questioned why farmers should not indemnify themselves against these costs so that they would be covered by the consumer purchase price rather than by taxes. Mr Podger and Sir John maintained that it was impossible to take these issues out of the context of other payments to farmers and that, in any case, this was outside the scope of the review.

Research and EU issues (paragraphs 72-73)

54. Sir John pointed out that the section on research was still evolving. Mr Body (from the floor) suggested that an extra point should be added to paragraph 72a to cover research required to identify preclinical cases of vCJD in the human population. Mr Harvey (Department of Health) noted that this would be in line with a September 1999 recommendation by SEAC. The suggestion was agreed.

Action: Secretariat

55. Mr Cutler (National Farmers' Union) referred (in relation to paragraph 72b) to his earlier proposal that BSE incidence in cattle over 4 years old should be reviewed.

56. Mrs Brander (from the floor) requested that details of research into diagnostic tests should be put into the public domain as soon as possible. Sir John asked the secretariat to provide a note on this.

Action: Secretariat

Referring to surveillance of 5 year old cattle, Mrs Brander also asked for a breakdown of age of cattle in BSE cases currently being recorded. Sir John agreed.

Action: Secretariat

57. Mr Harvey (Department of Health) suggested that paragraph 73 should include a reference to epidemiological work being undertaken in Europe. He could give details to the secretariat. This was agreed.

Action: Mr Harvey/ Secretariat

Any other business

58. Sir John explained that a wider public consultation meeting would be held in York on Monday 9 October. The draft report would then be revised to take account of discussions of this meeting and the one on 9 October as well as relevant recommendations of the Phillips Inquiry report. The revised draft would be discussed at a final meeting of the Stakeholder Group in London on Thursday 2 November before being put for approval to the November meeting of the FSA Board. The final report would then be published and submitted to Health and Agriculture Ministers.

59. Dr Baker (Consumers Association) noted that an executive summary would need to be prepared for publication of the final report. Sir John agreed and also mentioned that it was also proposed to issue at the same time a consumer guide to BSE which would take account of the outcome of this review.

60. Sir John closed the meeting by concluding that there now appeared to be overall agreement in the Stakeholder Group about the final shape of the report, although further work was required to take into account the points raised during the meeting. He thanked all who had been involved in the preparation of the draft.