Burry Inlet Shellfish Stakeholder Meeting

Mrs A Hemingway – Chair Advisory Committee for Wales
Mrs J Whinney – Director FSA Wales
Dr J Back – Microbiological Safety Division, FSA (London)
Mrs H George – FSA Wales
Mr A Williams – FSA Wales

Ms R Owen – Director of Environmental Services City and County of Swansea
Mr K James - City and County of Swansea
Cllr D I E James - City and County of Swansea
Miss S Davies – Carmarthenshire County Council
Mr M Bassett - Carmarthenshire County Council
Mr R O’Sullivan – Welsh Assembly Government
Mrs Thomas (PA to H M Jones – Assembly Member for Llanelli)
Mr B Hart (PA to E Hart – Assembly Member for Gower)
Professor J Parry – Swansea University
Dr K Flynn – Swansea University
Ms S Maloney - Canterbury City Council
Mr K Ratley – Kershaw Cockle Processors
Mr D Kershaw - Kershaw Cockle Processors
Mr R Parsons – Parsons Pickles
Mr P Coates – South Wales Sea Fisheries Association
Selwins Penclawdd Seafood

1. Introduction

1.1 Mrs Hemingway welcomed members to the meeting, the aim of which was to update stakeholders on recent issues surrounding the Burry Inlet Cockle gathering restrictions.

2. Background to Shellfish Monitoring Programme

2.1 Dr Back provided background to the monitoring programme and informed those present that it was a statutory monitoring programme, the detail of which had developed over a number of years. Dr Back commented that the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission had visited the UK in 1999 and 2002 to assess implementation of the EU legislation on shellfish hygiene (the 2002 visit included premises in the Burry Inlet area). The FVO had had no major comments on the UK biotoxin programme and were seemingly content with it’s extent, sampling and testing proceudres.

2.2 Dr Back outlined the mechanics for the FSA funded biotoxin programme.

3. Zoning and Testing

3.1 Dr Back gave information on steps which had been taken to zone areas where cockle-gathering restrictions had been in place. Areas of the Thames Estuary had been zoned for some time and, more recently, areas within the Burry Inlet. In addition, an adaptation of the zoning process was adopted in the Wash whereby a single bed was opened during the few weeks where cockle harvesting was allowed. It was emphasised that the Agency’s advice on zoning a given area was determined on a case by case basis following consideration of a wide range of issues, including the pattern of results over time, and discussions with the relevant local authority on enforceability matters.

3.2 Concern was expressed, by representatives from the shellfish industry, about the length of time it had taken to reach agreement to zone the Burry Inlet into a North and South area and again, into a SouthEast and South West area. Mrs Whinney explained that it was the local authorities which had the power to make and revoke temporary prohibition orders, while the Agency had responsibility for the monitoring programme. Decisions on zoning a particular area were made, taking the Agency’s advice into account. Discussions had taken place from an early stage and the ongoing monitoring had been useful in providing a developing pattern of results giving information on stability. The issue had been kept under review by the local authorities and the Agency and when information was available to suggest zoning was appropriate, the local authorities had made enforcement proposals. Mrs Whinney believed that the Agency had continued to review its advice in the light of information available and had not delayed a decision at the appropriate time.

3.3 Concern was expressed about the number of samples during the first phase of research. Mrs Whinney explained that the number of samples taken had been seven during the first phase of research. An industry representative expressed the view that the industry would have opposed this action had they appreciated the requirement for additional sampling. Mrs Whinney said that the Agency had been pressed at an earlier stakeholder discussion to undertake testing specifically in relation to the Burry Inlet.

3.4 The precautionary principle was questioned, in view of the fact that cockles sold fresh are consumed within the time taken for sample results to be received. Dr Back pointed out that the same was true for other kinds of shellfish poisoning. Discussions were held on the length of time between the taking of samples and the results being known of the subsequent tests. Attendees were informed that the Weymouth laboratory, which is used to detect Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP), is the laboratory responsible for sampling for the whole of the shellfish monitoring programme throughout England and Wales.

3.5 A query was raised on the possibility of changing the sampling days and whether such a change would result in results being made available sooner. FSA undertook to hold discussions with the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) to explore the possibility of a faster testing programme. However, it was noted that this was dependent on logistical issues such as the number of samples received by the laboratory, availability of mice, etc.

3.6 The possibility of using another laboratory to undertake the sampling was discussed. It was confirmed that the industry was not prevented from undertaking its own commercial testing but attendees were reminded that the statutory monitoring system remained an FSA responsibility and results from CEFAS under the statutory monitoring programme would inform public health protection decisions. Attendees were informed that the FSA had already made some enquires about sampling methods undertaken in other laboratories including one located in Aberdeen. It was confirmed that these investigations would be pursued and the protocols for the testing undertaken at Aberdeen explored.

3.7 Industry representatives raised their concerns about the reliability of the current DSP tests. It was confirmed that the current system was considered to be of a gold standard and that there was no alternative, at present, to the mouse bioassay methodology for detecting the full range of known DSP toxins. However, other methods were being explored but were unlikely to be utilised in the very near future.

4. Communication

4.1 Welsh Assembly Member representatives reminded the meeting that the prohibition orders were having a devastating effect on the local industry and that it was important that all stakeholders, including small businesses, were kept informed on developments in the area. Mrs Whinney advised that the FSA had spoken to a number of shellfish gatherers in an attempt to keep interested parties informed and invited attendees to provide contact points for any other stakeholders who were not being reached.

4.2 The possibility of using the FSA website to provide information on DSP was discussed and it was agreed that the FSA would explore the issue further, in particular, the placement of sample test results.

4.3 Dr Back reported that the FSA was consulting on guidance on the classification of shellfish beds. The guidance detailed the roles of shellfish liaison groups. Dr Back invited attendees to comment on the role of the groups in situations like the Burry Inlet.

5. Compensation

5.1 Enquiries were made about possible compensation for the shellfish gatherers who had been affected by the gathering restrictions.

5.2 Mr Rory O’Sullivan confirmed that the Welsh Assembly Government was hoping to have approval shortly, from the European Commission, for a compensation package shortly.

6. Research

6.1 Dr Back outlined the fish and shellfish research programme currently being funded by the FSA. On the atypical DSP issue, Dr Back reported that many tests had been undertaken to identify the cause of the positive results. He reported that the research programme was now eliminating possibilities and that there were clear indications that free fatty acids, chemical contaminants and the majority of the known marine biotoxins could be ruled out. Despite the amount of research undertaken, Dr Back confirmed that the FSA was unable yet to confirm the cause of the atypical results being seen from samples taken from the Burry Inlet. Experts around the world had been consulted. The research is continuing and will include acute toxicity studies in mice with histopathological investigations. There were many theories about the causative agent, some of which were discussed at the meeting.

6.2 Both local authorities present, emphasised their willingness to support the FSA and CEFAS with the research programme and reported that they were each prepared to make a contribution of £20,000 to relevant research.

6.3 Dr Flynn commented that he had put together a research proposal, in conjunction with the South Wales Sea Fisheries Association, aimed at identifying the cause of the ecological changes in the estuary and implications for shellfishery management, but that he had yet to have a response from the Welsh Assembly Government. Mr Rory O’Sullivan said that the Welsh Assembly Government had seen the application, which was currently with the Wales European Funding Office for consideration.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Mrs Hemingway thankedstakeholders for attending the meeting. She said that the FSA would supply a note of the discussions and would share information on developments.