Meeting of the Stakeholder Group: 18 July 2000

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 Chris Lawson Head of Meat Hygiene Division, FSA
Mr Mike Dawson Veterinary Public Health Unit and FSA Technical Adviser to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
Mr Peter Hewson Veterinary Public Health Unit, FSA
Mr Colin Maclean Crackwillow Ltd
Dr Eileen Rubery Judge Institute of Management Studies
Miss Barbara Richards Meat Hygiene Division, FSA and Review Secretary
Mrs Jane Gibson Meat Hygiene Division, FSA and Review Secretariat
Mr Andrew Chitty British Meat Federation
Mr Adam Muggoch British Meat Manufacturers’ Association
Mr Chris Gilbert-Wood British Retail Consortium
Ms Mona Patel Consumers’ Association
Dr John Godfrey Consumers in Europe Group
Mr Mark Lazzeri Farmers’ Union of Wales
Mr Bob Bansback Meat and Livestock Commission
Mr Robin Simpson National Consumer Council
Mr Neil Cutler National Farmers’ Union
Mr Jim Walker National Farmers’ Union of Scotland
Mr Bob Tyler National Federation of Meat and Food Traders
Mr Peter Bevan Small Abattoirs Federation
Mrs Jill Nute The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Prof Peter Biggs The Royal Society
Mr Alan Lawrence UK Renderers’ Association
Mr John Rankin Ulster Farmers’ Union
Prof Peter Lachmann The Academy of Medical Sciences
Mr Wesley Shannon Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland
Mr Alan Harvey Department of Health
Dr Liz Mitchell Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Northern Ireland
Dr Peter Nash Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Mr Gwyn Jones National Assembly for Wales, Agriculture Dept
Mrs Pat Sellars Office of Science and Technology (morning session)
Ms Jen Stokes Office of Science and Technology (afternoon session)
Dr Rosalind Skinner Scottish Executive Health Department
Mr Martin Morgan Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department

Introduction and apologies for absence

1. Sir John Krebs welcomed members of the Stakeholder Group and the public observers. He invited the observers to participate but noted that time constraints meant that it was particularly important that their contributions should be succinct and relevant.

2. Sir John welcomed Dr Eileen Rubery who was assisting the secretariat and also introduced Mr Peter Hewson of the FSA Veterinary Public Health Unit and Mr Colin Maclean, an external consultant, who would be presenting papers to today’s meeting. Mr Stephen Ridge (British Retail Consortium) had been replaced by Mr Chris Gilbert-Wood. Other members attending for the first time were Professor Peter Lachmann, Mr Jim Walker, Mr Andrew Chitty, Mr John Rankin, Mr Robin Simpson and Dr Liz Mitchell.

3. Apologies for absence had been received from Mr John Chadwick (Small Abattoirs Federation), Professor Brian Heap (the Royal Society), Mr Robert Voyle (Farmers’ Union of Wales), Dr Susan Baker (Consumers’ Association), Mr David Dickson (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department), Dr Martin Donaghy (Scottish Executive Health Department), Mr Stewart Johnston (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland), Dr Henry Fell (British Medical Association) and Mr Richard Hughes (National Assembly for Wales NHS Directorate).

Matters arising from the minutes of the 24 May meeting of the Stakeholder Group and correspondence received

4. The minutes of the last meeting had been circulated to stakeholders in draft for comment. The final version had been issued on 26 June and placed on the FSA website.

5. Sir John noted that there had been one outstanding action point for Mr Harvey (Department of Health). Mr Harvey reported that he had checked with the Medicines Control Agency to see whether precautions against BSE being applied in relation to medicines were adequate. He explained that new EU rules had led to recent changes in legislation in the UK. These changes applied from 1 July 2000 to new products and from 1 March 2001 to existing products. What had previously operated as guidelines would now have the force of law and apply rigorous controls to the sourcing and processing of bovine material used in the manufacture of medicinal products. Purification processes were designed to remove materials associated with manufacture which were not required for the finished product.

6. There were no other matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting.

7. Sir John briefly listed the correspondence received since the previous Stakeholder Group meeting and noted that copies would continue to be available from the Review secretariat. They would also soon be available on the FSA website.

8. Sir John invited questions on the correspondence circulated so far to stakeholders and observers. Mr David Body (from the floor) drew attention to Dr John Godfrey’s letter of 9 July about cases in France who had developed classical CJD after being treated with human growth hormone. Evidence from a study of these cases pointed to the fact that genotype had an effect on the incubation period. Dr Godfrey had noted that, to date, research indicated that UK vCJD cases genotyped so far had the same genotype. This genotype was shared by about 40% of the UK population. The possibility that there were other genotypes in the population that could present the disease more slowly, act as carriers or be resistant, could not be ruled out. Mr Body echoed the call in Dr Godfrey’s letter for a review of vCJD evidence to see if a similar pattern of genetic susceptibility and incubation times could be found. Sir John pointed out that this would be outside the remit of the FSA Review.

Revised list of questions to be addressed – Paper SG 2/1

9. Sir John explained that Paper 2/1 had been produced for the first Stakeholder Group meeting as a basis for stakeholders and observers to conduct the Review. The questions were intended to serve as a checklist and could be further changed during the course of the Review. There had been some revisions as a result of the first meeting. Sir John added that many of the issues expressed in the questions in Paper 2/1 were implicitly addressed in the three main papers to be presented to today’s meeting.

10. Sir John explained that Papers SG 2/2, SG 2/3 and SG 2/4 had been drafted to try to address some of the issues covered by the section on “Controls” (questions 17-28) of Paper SG 2/1. They had been drafted by the internal FSA Review team, supplemented for the purpose by Mr Peter Hewson and Mr Colin Maclean. The papers were intended as discussion papers to elicit stakeholders’ views, which could then be taken into consideration in drafting the eventual report. The papers did not represent the final view of the FSA and were not to be seen as constituting the first draft of the final report. They were part of an evolutionary process considering key facts and issues now and for the future.

Issues influencing possible changes to the Over Thirty Month Rule for cattle – Paper SG 2/2

11. Mr Hewson introduced his paper (copies available to all present) and summarised its main points: the original basis of the OTM rule, whether the risks had changed since its introduction in 1996, how the risks might be likely to change in the future and what the options were for changing the OTM rule.

Discussion

12. In response to a question from Mr Simpson (National Consumer Council) about disposal of cattle slaughtered under the Over Thirty Month Scheme (OTMS), Mr Hewson noted that they were stored as rendered meat and bone meal and not as carcases. Mr Simpson asked if Mr Hewson’s estimate of 16,400 animals with significant infectivity removed from the food chain since 1996 under the OTMS meant that, without the OTM rule, they would have entered the food chain. Mr Hewson agreed but pointed out that the SRM rules would have applied to them.

13. Mr Bansback (Meat and Livestock Commission) referred to the MLC paper submitted to the Review (copies were available to all present) which advocated reintroducing into the food chain from April 2001 cattle born after 28 September 1998, subject to specific conditions.

14. Mr Cutler (National Farmers’ Union) noted that the cattle passport/identification system’s reported 10% rate of discrepancies did not perhaps reflect the more reliable data on dates of birth of cattle born since 1998. Mr Hewson pointed out that this was the rate of discrepancies reported by inspectors on farm visits. Sir John noted that a passport system could not be completely watertight. Mr David Body (from the floor) expressed his concern at the discrepancy rate and noted that an efficient cattle tracing system was fundamental to any changes to the OTM rule.

15. Mrs Nute (The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) noted that the discrepancies in cattle identification appeared, on anecdotal evidence, to result from the fact that two types of cattle passport were currently in circulation. The errors often related to incorrect cattle movement dates which did not relate to the age of the animal. The physical ante and post mortem checks at slaughterhouses helped to deal with this.

16. Dr Mitchell (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Northern Ireland) asked for a geographical breakdown of data in the survey referred to in paragraph 2.9 of Mr Hewson’s paper. Sir John undertook to provide this.

Action: Secretariat

17. Mr Alan Long (from the floor) expressed concern about possible infectivity in milk and in faeces. Mr Hewson noted that evidence for this had not yet been found. Mr Dawson explained that the role of milk in possible maternal transmission had been investigated. Mice had been given milk from a naturally infected cow but no infectivity had been found in the mice. He also noted that evidence from the natural BSE epidemic had revealed no evidence for significant lateral transmission via faeces. Sir John added that a MAFF paper exploring possible faecal transmission had not ruled this out, but the toxicity of the faeces would have made this route of infection difficult.

18. Mr Long also raised the issue of older cattle from the Irish Republic sent on the hoof to France, which were then slaughtered and were the source of meat products imported into the UK. Sir John noted that this was an issue on which the Review report would be commenting. Mr Walker (National Farmers’ Union of Scotland) was concerned that the paper did not place sufficient emphasis on the role of imports. Sir John noted that the role of the FSA was to protect consumers, irrespective of the origin of food. He acknowledged that imports needed to be considered in the context of the OTM rule and of the other BSE control measures.

19. Mrs Judy Brander (from the floor) asked for further information about the current state of research on possible maternal transmission. Sir John undertook to provide this. Mr Kevin Taylor (from the floor) noted that a 1996 study had found no evidence of BSE among calves which had suckled pedigree beef cows which subsequently developed BSE. This might be strong evidence for the safety of milk.

Action: Secretariat to present a short note summarising the state of research on maternal transmission, including the role of milk.

20. Mrs Brander also asked for further information about research on genetic susceptibility to BSE and about cattle not clinically presenting with BSE. Mr Dawson noted that possible genetic pre-disposition to BSE had already been quite extensively studied but that no genetic pre-disposition to BSE had so far been discovered. He also noted that research had so far revealed no evidence of a carrier-state for BSE, but that it had not been ruled out. As the experimental dose had been made more and more dilute, results had showed that some individuals became infected and some did not.

21. Ms Patel (Consumers’ Association) expressed concern at the large amounts of rendered OTMS MBM being stored prior to incineration and called for Government intervention to speed up the process. Sir John pointed out that this was not strictly within the remit of this Review.
Dr Nash (MAFF) noted that, although a large stockpile had accumulated, new incineration capacity was coming on stream. This meant that the outflow now exceeded the inflow, so the stockpile was diminishing.

22. Ms Patel also drew attention to the role of insects in transmitting scrapie and asked if there were currently any research being sponsored on possible similar routes of transmission for BSE, including the role of skin cells, possibly via scratching posts. Mr Dawson reported that MAFF was currently funding two projects which should establish whether there had been any significant distribution of mites in infected and non-infected farms.

23. Ms Joanna Wheatley (from the floor) raised the issue of the use of bovine tissues in pharmaceutical products and reiterated some of the points she had made in correspondence about the possible role of organo-phosphates (copies already made available). Sir John noted that these points had already been made and would be considered.

24. Sir John concluded the discussion by identifying some key issues, some of which had been only implicitly raised. He noted that it was important that agreement on what constituted an acceptable risk should be established. Zero risk would be unlikely to be achieved. Additionally, once BSE incidence had reached a very low level it would be very difficult to detect. Sir John noted that very robust cattle identification procedures would have to be maintained if the dates of birth of animals were to be the bases of any future relaxation of controls. Casualty animals, imported animals and animal products, and EU requirements would introduce extra pressures.

Specified Risk Material: Factors which might influence reconsideration of present controls – Paper SG 2/3

25. Mr Dawson introduced his paper (copies available to all present) and summarised its main points. It reviewed the rationale behind the existing Specified Risk Material (SRM) controls for cattle, sheep and goats, including the original case for controls and the science behind these controls. It outlined the factors which had changed since the original controls were put in place and the options for action.

Discussion

26. Mr Walker (National Farmers’ Union of Scotland) raised the issue of introducing resistance to TSEs into the national sheep flock via breeding programmes. He noted that one laboratory had withdrawn from testing for commercial reasons. Mr Dawson pointed out that a national programme had not been ruled out.

27. Mr Bansback (Meat and Livestock Commission) raised the issue of a sheep identification scheme, noting that although it would be costly and unnecessary at the present time, it might be needed in the future. He also suggested that random checks could be made on imported products. He then asked for the FSA’s view on the EU SRM controls announced on 29 June 2000 which were not as comprehensive as the existing UK controls. Sir John explained that Member States were not free to introduce or maintain additional national measures. However, SEAC’s view was that, because controls had been improved in other Member States, there would be a net benefit to the UK. Mr Bansback noted that this ought to improve the situation regarding imported products.

28. Mr Dennis Woolf (from the floor) asked if the differences between UK and EU SRM controls reflected a difference in risk assessment between the EU Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) and SEAC. Sir John noted that SEAC was represented on the Review’s Internal Group. SEAC included Australian, Swiss and US members. Dr Nash added that, in his view, there was very little difference currently between UK and EU risk assessment.

29. Dr Godfrey (Consumers in Europe Group) suggested the need to improve further the efficient removal of SRM from cattle. He asked if wider use could be made of saws which made cuts at both sides of the vertebral column, so that it could be removed whole, thus significantly reducing any risk of contamination from saw blades. Mrs Nute (The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) pointed out the practical problems of anchoring the resulting two halves of the carcase. Mr Bevan (Small Abattoirs Federation) agreed with Mrs Nute’s point and added that a major drawback would be that the proposed method would destroy the highest value meat. The resulting increase in slaughterhouse costs would then have to be passed on to the consumer. Mr Tyler (National Federation of Meat and Food Traders) noted that the independent craft retail traders he represented would support these practical and economic arguments against changing sawing practices. Mr Hewson noted that the MLC had done a lot of work on this but had so far been unable to introduce a practical solution.

30. Mr Cutler (National Farmers’ Union) asked for clarification about BSE in sheep. Although it had been stated that there was, as yet, no test that could distinguish between BSE and scrapie, there had been a recent newspaper report which implied that some ewes in Vermont, USA, previously imported from Belgium in 1996, had allegedly been found to be infected with BSE. Mr Ralph Blanchfield (from the floor) noted that drastic emergency measures had allegedly been taken in the US as a result.

Mr Dawson informed the meeting that he remained closely in touch with the USDA official in charge of the case and that it was not accurate to say there had been a positive diagnosis of BSE. The newspaper report had been misleading.

31. Ms Dena Freeman (from the floor) asked who would take any future decision to introduce further BSE controls in sheep. Sir John pointed out that UK ministers would be examining closely the FSA’s review of BSE controls as part of a risk reduction strategy. Ultimately, if BSE were found in sheep, new EU controls could be introduced. Professor Lachmann (The Academy of Medical Sciences) noted the practical difficulties of removing lymphoid tissue from very young lambs at slaughter. He asked if one possible recommendation of the FSA review might therefore be to aim for a scrapie-free national flock. Mr Dawson confirmed that if the review came to the conclusion that the controls had to be reviewed in that direction then it could be taken forward. Sir John expressed the FSA’s support for such measures.

32. Ms Frances Hall (from the floor) asked what would be the benefits of relaxing SRM controls for cattle. Sir John explained that SRM controls had resulted in the loss of some products to the market and that the costs of inspection were being met by public subsidy.

33. Sir John concluded that, for cattle, if the incidence of BSE were at a sufficiently low level, with a robust screening procedure, there might be a case for re-examining SRM controls. An important question to be addressed would be how we would determine what would be a low level of BSE incidence. There was much greater uncertainty for sheep. He noted that, although BSE had not been discovered in the national sheep flock, measures were being considered for eliminating TSEs from the national flock through a breeding programme. This would be a long-term solution. In these circumstances, the controls in place represented a risk reduction approach on a precautionary basis.

Issues relating to the feed ban – Paper SG 2/4

34. Mr Maclean summarised the main points of his paper, including the arguments for the feed ban controls, the extent to which these arguments still held, and possible future action.

Discussion

35. Professor Lachmann (The Academy of Medical Sciences) advised the greatest possible caution in relaxing the feed ban. He noted that the origin of BSE had probably been a very rare spongiform encephalopathy that had arisen and been transmitted. The chance of that happening again should make us very cautious about feeding animals to animals. Experience with growth hormone work had demonstrated the effect of pooling material, in that infection spread rapidly.

36. Mr Tyler (National Federation of Meat and Food Traders) stressed the need for even-handed treatment for imported and UK produced meat.

Mr Lawrence (UK Renderers’ Association) noted that the basic hypothesis underlying the feed ban was that feeding infected MBM had been the means of spreading BSE infection in the cattle population. He suggested that the role of neither veterinary medicines nor organophosphates had been sufficiently examined. He also noted that poultry feed was perhaps less likely as a possible source of feed cross-contamination than

Mr Maclean had suggested: most of it was produced in dedicated systems under strict security. He felt that porcine MBM should be allowed for poultry feeding. He accepted SEAC’s view that intra-species recycling was unacceptable.

37. Mr Bansback (Meat and Livestock Commission) noted that the MLC had put a paper up to SEAC about dedicated feed procedures for porcine MBM. Much would hinge on experimental work currently being carried out on pigs. He asked for further information about the research referred to in Mr Maclean’s paper to be made available. Sir John undertook to provide this.

Action: The Secretariat to provide a note on the pig and chicken research referred to in paper SG 2/4.

38. Mr Simpson (National Consumer Council) asked for clarification on the differences between the 1988 and 1996 feed bans. Mr Maclean noted that, whereas the first ban was a ruminant MBM feed ban, the later ban not only extended it to become a mammalian feed ban but also legislated against its sale, storage, use and possession. Even so, it would not be possible to ensure that all the MBM feed had been withdrawn in August 1996. The recent BSE case born after that date perhaps reflected this, although the possibility of maternal transmission had not yet been ruled out. If research confirmed that maternal transmission could occur and if this isolated case were to be followed by a cluster of cases, maternal transmission might be the more likely cause than weak implementation of the 1996 feed ban.

39. Mr Alan Long (from the floor) questioned the role of feed cross-contamination in the BSE epidemic. If MBM feed were a source of infection, why were more cows not infected? Mr Maclean explained that even a contaminated feed batch might contain only pockets of infected material. In this way one animal could contract BSE while another could escape infection.

40. Mr Lawrence (UK Renderers’ Association) asked for more information on the risk from tallow. Sir John asked if it had been scientifically demonstrated not to be a risk. Dr Paul Vossen (from the floor) explained that the EC Scientific Steering Committee would be reporting later this year on the use of tallow.

41. Mr West (from the floor) asked for further information on past and present possible bovine vaccination routes for transmission of infection to humans. Mr Harvey (Department of Health) noted that the Medicines Control Agency regulated vaccines for human use. Professor Peter Biggs (The Royal Society) added that bovine sources were now only used from BSE-free countries. Mr Blanchfield (from the floor) raised the issue of controls on the use of bovine material in veterinary medicines. Mr Body (from the floor) asked if a wide-ranging paper on the use of bovine material in human and veterinary medicine could be commissioned jointly from the Department of Health and MAFF. The Stakeholder Group could then refer to this as part of the Review. Sir John undertook to do this.

Action: Secretariat

42. Mr Lazzeri (Farmers’ Union of Wales) asked whether research had been undertaken on possible genetic factors in BSE in cattle. Were some cattle breeds more susceptible than others, for example, Holstein-Friesians?

Mr Dawson noted that this breed had been the most widely exposed to the BSE agent. Some research on genetic factors had shown much less variation in the cow than in the sheep. So far there had been no evidence to identify a bovine polymorphism with disease risk. He added that other research was looking at genetic susceptibility outside the PrP.

43. Sir John concluded the discussion by noting that the feed route had been the major factor (if not the only factor) in transmitting BSE. There had been strong supporting evidence in the relationship between the feed ban and the epidemic profile. However, he acknowledged past uncertainty about the sources of BSE in cattle and of CJD in humans and recognised the possible role of other routes of infection. Research was continuing into the possible role of pigs as carriers (if not expressers) of TSEs and into the role of poultry. Sir John also indicated that an important research aim would be to develop valid tests for infectivity. He noted SEAC’s view that cannibalism among farm livestock should be prevented even in the longer term. More immediately, he recognised that any possible relaxation of the feed ban would have to be combined with security of segregated feed production, supply and storage. Policing this at the mill and on the farm would be a key issue, including the question of imported feed.

Date of next meeting

44. Sir John confirmed that the next meeting of the Stakeholder Group would be held on 14 September, at a London venue to be announced as soon as possible. At that meeting, the first, rough draft of the Report would be ready for stakeholders to consider. After that, the intention was to hold a wider public consultation meeting outside London. A final Stakeholder Group meeting would be held in London once the Phillips Inquiry report had been produced. Delaying until the Phillips Inquiry had reported was required by the terms of the FSA BSE Controls Review: there might be recommendations in the Phillips report that would have to be incorporated in the recommendations of the FSA report. As the date of the Phillips Inquiry report publication was not yet known, the date of the final Stakeholder Group meeting could not yet be announced.

Any other business

45. There was no other business.