| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.26 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am pleased to have this opportunity--I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) in his opening remarks--to explain why the regulations were introduced, as, clearly, a number of misconceptions have been voiced in recent weeks and recent minutes. Given the short time available, I shall cover the main points as briefly as possible.
The Government have been accused of taking a rushed decision in response to a very small risk. We did not. There were indications last summer from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee that actions might need to be taken to remove the risk of a newly discovered BSE infective material entering the human food chain.
The picture became clearer in succeeding months. In late November, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Health, with other Ministers, met to consider the issues with the chairman of SEAC, the deputy chief medical officer and senior officials. At the time, the research results were known, but SEAC's likely recommendations were not. When SEAC's recommendations were known and the chief medical officer's advice had been sought and received, a decision was taken by Ministers, including the Prime Minister.
There was therefore no ill-considered or hasty reaction to SEAC's report. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, was able to make a statement to the House on 3 December that had been fully and carefully thought out.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rooker:
No, I shall not give way for the moment.
It may assist the House if I put SEAC's recommendations in the context of the research findings that led to them. New results from continuing research had shown, first, that BSE infectivity had been found in the dorsal root ganglia of bovine animals. Secondly--something that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West did not mention--there were indications, which are still being evaluated, that BSE infectivity may also be found in the bone marrow of cattle. Dorsal root ganglia are in the channels within back bones. The preliminary findings of possible BSE infectivity in bone marrow apply to all bovine bones. SEAC reported that the risk to human health was very small, a point to which I shall return.
SEAC's advice came in two parts and not as the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West described it or as has been reported. First, SEAC recommended that the research results should be published and consumers warned of the risk--we did both at once. Secondly, the committee recommended that, if the Government decided that further action was necessary to reduce the small risk further,
That was one of the options SEAC had recommended. The other--the deboning of older cattle slaughtered between 24 and 30 months of age--was not a practical proposition owing to lack of cutting plant capacity and because the Meat Hygiene Service does not have sufficient qualified staff for enforcement.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
Why did not SEAC recommend those options?
Mr. Rooker:
That was not SEAC's view. We are making the decisions and that is what we are accountable for.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)
rose--
Mr. Rooker:
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
The Government took very careful account of advice from the chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman. Sir Kenneth made it absolutely clear that he
Mr. Rooker:
I will give way in a moment.
Some people claim that there is no example in the past of SEAC giving a view without a recommendation. That is incorrect. In 1994, advice only was given on the use of calf intestines and thymus. However, the then Government operated a policy of extreme caution. In a parliamentary answer, the then Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that SEAC had
Mrs. Browning:
I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I understand his point about advice from SEAC and the chief medical officer and the need for a belt-and-braces policy. However, there is an inconsistency in the decision made by the present Government compared with decisions made by the previous Government in respect of different parts of the carcase. If there is a risk, however minuscule, why is the material not specified bovine material and treated properly, as the rest of the carcase which is considered to be at risk is treated?
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
Is that what the hon. Lady is suggesting?
Mrs. Browning:
No, I am not suggesting that. If the Minister is going to put forward an intellectual case for the risk, he must also explain why the material is not SBM.
Mr. Rooker:
I shall come to that point--the hon. Lady has asked a fair question. We are being practical about the nature of the bits involved. I notice that she did not refer to the potential problem in respect of bone marrow, which is conveniently ignored by most commentators.
To return to the risk to consumers, SEAC emphasised that the risk is very small; however, it is very real. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a terrible disease. The first
signs of new variant CJD are often psychiatric, including anxiety, depression and behavioural change which progresses. After a period of weeks or months, difficulties in walking appear--[Interruption.] This is not a joking matter for victims' families.
The patient develops uncontrollable jerky movements, progressive stiffness of the limbs and incontinence. As the disease progresses, patients lose awareness of their surroundings, become unable to recognise members of their family and finally pass into a state of complete physical unresponsiveness. There is no treatment and, after one or two years, the patient dies. It is distressing to family and friends to watch someone they care for and love become so seriously ill. No one--I repeat, no one--has yet recovered.
"either: no beef with the bone in from cattle over 6 months old should be sold to the consumer; or cattle slaughtered between 24 and 30 months of age for human consumption should be deboned under official control by the Meat Hygiene Service in licensed plants".
Frankly, it should have been no surprise to anyone either inside or outside the House or in the scientific community that we decided that further action was necessary. Ever since the introduction of the ban on specified bovine offal in 1989, Governments have always--I repeat, always--excluded from the human food chain any tissue in which BSE infectivity has been identified. The only way to ensure that that was done in the light of the new SEAC findings was to prevent bone-in beef from cattle over six months old from being sold to consumers.
"would be very concerned if any tissues that have been shown to transmit BSE were knowingly allowed to remain in the human food chain".
Therefore, the action taken was fully in line with past practice and the chief medical officer's firm advice on the need for action as the natural history of BSE and new variant CJD is still largely unknown.
"concluded that the theoretical risk of infection of man from food from infected calves is minuscule. They advised that the continuing results of the experiment should be carefully monitored to confirm this basic conclusion."
The right hon. Lady continued:
"I have carefully considered this advice in consultation with my right hon. Friends the other Agriculture Ministers and the Secretary of State for Health. We have concluded while the assessment of SEAC and of the CMO is that any risk to health is minuscule, the Government's policy of extreme caution in relation to BSE requires us to ensure that the tissues in which infectivity might potentially occur are removed from the human and animal food chain."--[Official Report, 30 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 654.]
I greatly regret that the Opposition have now disowned that very clear policy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |