 |
|
| |
Replacement
of the Over Thirty Month (OTM) Rule with a system based on
testing cattle for BSE in abbattoirs |
CFG
12/05
Comments by Foodaware
on the replacement of the Over Thirty Month (OTM) Rule with a system
based on testing cattle for BSE in abbattoirs
The Context
Risk Assessment
A Robust Scheme
Enforcement
Identity Checks and Traceability
Specified Risk Material (SRM)
2. The Context
2.1 A number of changes in the way consumers are
protected against BSE are being proposed currently. The Government
announced on 1 December 2004, the start of a managed transition toward
replacing the Over Thirty Month (OTM) rule with BSE testing when the
Food Standards Agency (FSA) has advised Ministers that the proposed
testing system is robust. Both Defra and the FSA have formal consultations
underway on specific proposals for a testing regime to replace the
OTM rule. This paper seeks to address the issues raised in both documents.
2.2 The consultations concern the legislative and
other arrangements that would need to be put in place to enable the
change to a test-based system. The stated intention is to bring the
UK into line with arrangements that apply throughout the EU, with
the exception that UK animals born before August 1996 would be permanently
excluded from the food chain. The economic imperative cannot be overlooked,
however. Due to the OTM, imports account for about 40% of our beef
supplies. The Government wishes to regain access to the export market
and the cost of compensation to taxpayers for the destruction of OTM
cattle in the UK is around £320 million each year.
3. Risk Assessment
3.1 The FSA and Defra are not consulting on the principle
of whether a change in the OTM rule should take place, as this decision
has already been taken by the Government. The decision resulted from
FSA advice in July 2004 that a change was justified, and advice from
the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) that despite
significant scientific uncertainties and pessimistic assumptions the
effect of a change would be between none and 2.5 additional vCJD cases
over 60 years.
3.2 Foodaware opposed the change in the OTM rule.
Members felt that public health concerns should remain paramount,
whatever the economic considerations. Despite reassurance that the
risk from BSE is falling, the picture from a consumer perspective
remains confused. BSE may be present in some of the cattle currently
culled at 30 months and the science contains many uncertainties. We
believe that there should be more transparency over the risk assessment
issues and the reliance placed upon them.
3.3 While we acknowledge that the figures of confirmed
BSE cases continue to fall, BSE has not been eradicated and there
remain inexplicable cases in cattle born after the 1996 feed ban reinforcement,
and ongoing worry about maternal transmission. Foodaware members remain
concerned about the number of positive BSE cases reported each year.
In 2004, 12 cattle tested positive among animals which otherwise appeared
to be healthy. All of these were born between 1997 and 1999. There
will be an inevitable increase in risk from allowing OTM cattle into
the food chain albeit that this is expected to be small. That risk
must be minimised.
3.4 Questions have been raised about the reliability
and sensitivity of the tests that are being used. These tests are,
as we know, approved by the EU, and the work is only carried out in
approved laboratories which are quality assured. The validity of the
tests must remain subject to ongoing monitoring so that the public
can have confidence in their ability to detect disease before symptoms
appear.
4. A Robust Scheme
4.1 In view of the ongoing uncertainties about the
development and control of BSE, Foodaware considers that the replacement
of the OTM Rule with BSE testing should be approached with extreme
caution. Consumer views remain sceptical and so any change to a more
lenient regime risks being viewed in a negative light. Abbattoirs
face financial pressures and the Meat Hygiene Service has found and
investigated cases involving an estimated 224 cattle aged between
24 and 30 months that were wrongly allowed into the food chain without
being tested. While the risk from these animals may have been low,
such failures do nothing for consumer confidence, and members need
reassurance that the necessary changes have been made in the Meat
Hygiene Service (MHS) and OVS to prevent such errors in the future.
The FSA should not recommend a change in the arrangements for dealing
with OTM cattle to government until it is confident that the recommendations
made by the Wall Enquiry into testing failures have all been implemented.
4.2 The meat industry has not demonstrated a commitment
to compliance in the past, and there are examples of fraudulent practice
and of unfit meat coming onto the market in the UK. Because of this,
it is absolutely vital that OTM cattle are only slaughtered in abbattoirs
that can demonstrate that they have systems in place to ensure that
OTM animals can be clearly identified, separately processed –
including segregation in the lairage, during slaughter and testing,
and traced through the food chain. Opportunities for cross contamination
must be minimised and there must be facilities so that tested carcasses
can be held in locked chillers until test results are received. No
abbattoir should be allowed to be involved in this trade unless it
has been approved and demonstrated that it can run a fail-safe trial.
We strongly support the proposals in Schedule 1A which seek to achieve
this effect.
4.3 Without such confirmation based on satisfactory
trials, the FSA would not have evidence that the system is sufficiently
robust for consumers to rely on it. Agreement over the Recognised
Methods of Operation (RMOP), and the power to withdraw agreement if
failures are discovered, would appear to be an appropriate way forward.
We support the incorporation of these provisions in the legislation
and would expect action to be taken in the event of breaches.
4.4 Members recognise that there may be strong economic,
social and animal welfare, arguments for allowing small abbattoirs,
particularly those in isolated and upland areas to carry out this
trade. However, public health must be the over-riding concern and
only abbattoirs that have appropriate and reliable systems should
be approved.
4.5 Much is made of the cost of the OTM scheme, but
the potential cost, of a further loss of consumer confidence in beef
resulting from failures in the new arrangements, could be greater.
To this end, Foodaware members would like the implementation of the
new arrangements to take place in stages. This would ease the pressure
on MHS and OVS staff and ensure that the numbers of OTM cattle going
through the authorised plants were manageable until the trade could
be seen to be working effectively. We suggest that as the risk of
BSE increases with age, in the first instance only cattle born after
the year 2000 should be allowed into the food chain. BSE occurs at
an average age of five years and in the 12 months before the onset
of clinical disease, cattle present a higher risk. Older animals could
be brought in gradually when the systems were assured. It is worth
noting that during the previous consultations on the proposals from
the core Stakeholder Group, industry were keen that changes should
be phased in to avoid market collapse. The possibility of introducing
a different cut-off point for animals to be allowed to enter the food
chain subject to testing was rejected by the FSA on the basis of a
cost-benefit assessment. The FSA did not, however, consider the possibility
of staggering the date during a transition phase, and we believe it
should so that consumer confidence can build up gradually and the
additional risk exposure be minimised. Research on the consumer response
to changes in the regime is also needed.
5. Enforcement
5.1 Consumer confidence will depend on effective
enforcement of this change. The regulations are complex and will require
greater resources than the existing arrangements which have not been
adequate. FSA and Defra should ensure that sufficient resources are
made available to oversee and enforce testing arrangements in the
plants and for sufficient staff to be available to carry out the inspections.
Additional costs will be incurred in training, developing and supporting
staff who will be working in an unpleasant environment where commercial
pressures are considerable. Sufficiently experienced staff must be
made available to carry out this work, and should be supported by
the FSA, MHS and Defra in taking difficult decisions. Defra’s
Regulatory Impact Assessment acknowledges that the new arrangements
will be dependent on the FSA advising that the testing regime is robust
and on other issues such as recruitment of additional MHS staff. Having
not allowed this meat into the food chain for the past 9 years, there
should not be undue haste now. The FSA and Defra should proceed with
the utmost caution and ensure the resources are available to enforce
the new regime.
5.2 The Government has decided that given the division
of responsibility for BSE control and meat hygiene between Defra and
the Meat Hygiene Service, the FSA should take on a new role in the
audit and review of the system for BSE testing. This will separate
responsibility for testing from the audit arrangements. It is essential
that there are no regulatory or enforcement gaps if this new regime
is to gain public confidence and we support the FSA’s role in
auditing the arrangements of both Defra and DARD in Northern Ireland.
We are also pleased that Defra have agreed to meet the costs of an
independent review of the testing regime during the first 6 months
after its introduction. The results of this review must be made public.
6. Identity Checks
and Traceability
6.1 A new Schedule 1A which Defra proposes to add
to the Regulations requires there to be a reliable system for identifying
cattle born before and after 1 August 1996 on arrival at the slaughterhouse,
to ensure that no animal born before 1 August 1996 is slaughtered
for human consumption, and that animals over 30 months are clearly
identified. The animals over 30 months must also be separated from
the under thirty month animals in the slaughterhouse. There are concerns
about the reliability of the arrangements for identifying animals
including the systems for issuing passports and ear-tagging. The FSA
itself acknowledges in the draft regulatory impact assessment that
cattle identification procedures were less reliable between August
1996 and October 1998 than they have become thereafter. This would
be another reason for staggering the introduction of the new arrangements.
6.2 Centralised arrangements may mean that identity
checks for cattle passports are not infallible, and we encourage Defra
to penalise any cases of fraud or deliberate mis-representation which
it finds. Identity checks at the abattoirs will be a very important
control measure. OVS staff must have sufficient time to carry these
out and where there is doubt about an animal’s age or identity,
it should be rejected. Ideally, we would support a bar-coded system
whereby the ear-tags and passports could be readily, and simply, checked
by abattoir staff, thereby reducing the risk of human error. We are
particularly concerned about the significant number of animals born
before August 1998 for which passports are not available, and underline
in the strongest terms, that where there is uncertainty over the date
of birth or identity, the animal must not be allowed into the food
chain.
6.3 Following slaughter, it is vital that all body
parts are labelled (or batched) and can be traced throughout the abbattoir
and in cutting plants. Automated systems would be desirable so that
checks can be carried out quickly and effectively and this would also
facilitate the audit process. Implementation of Community Regulations,
which require a blue striped label to be applied in the slaughterhouse
if a carcase does not require the vertebral column to be removed,
will help in this. We note that the traceability of cattle hides will
be a matter for control by the Meat and Livestock Commission, and
are concerned that this may be a weak link which should also be audited.
We also oppose the reintroduction into animal feed of hydrolised proteins
from non-ruminant and ruminant hides on safety, ethical and religious
grounds, and have concerns about the additional risk from this. Consumer
confidence will not be maintained if there are failures in testing
or traceability during the initial implementation phase.
7. Specified
Risk Material (SRM)
7.1 Any over thirty month animal which tests positive
for BSE must be disposed of as SRM - the main public health measure.
The FSA estimates that the removal of SRM takes out over 99% of any
infectivity in cattle. The TSE England)(Amendment) Regulations 2005
on which Defra is consulting propose that a number of EU amendments
which have been directly applicable in the UK since August 2002 be
incorporated into national legislation. One amendment will require
all beef carcase meat containing vertebral column to be sent to a
licensed cutting plant for removal of the SRM (para 14). Currently,
vertical column is only removed from UK cattle at 30 months. The revised
proposals will require removal of vertical column from all cattle
after 12 months which will reinforce and improve on existing controls.
It is also proposed to bring the UK requirements concerning the removal
of SRM in sheep and goats into line with European legislation. We
are content with these proposals provided a thorough risk assessment
has been carried out and SEAC’s views taken into account (para
15).
7.2 We support the introduction of a ‘Young
goat stamp’ in the regulations to reduce the possibility of
confusion between young lambs and goats.
Foodaware is content for this response to be made publicly available.
May 2005
|
|
