Changes to BSE testing

Posted by Andrew Wadge on October 20th 2008

In many ways, the epidemic of BSE in cattle (and it's human form, vCJD) was the defining reason why people in the UK lost faith in the Government's handling of food safety in the 1990s – and why the FSA was subsequently established.  So any proposal to change the testing regime for BSE in slaughterhouses, as discussed by the FSA Board last week, has a special resonance for us.  

The issue discussed was whether to support a move to increase the age at which UK cattle are BSE tested from 30 months to 48 months. 

As usual, the starting point was the science, and here we were assisted by the results of risk modelling by the European Food Safety Authority and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.  This modelling work was then subjected to independent review by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) which advises government on risks associated with TSEs.  The SEAC Chairman, Professor Chris Higgins, attended the Board meeting and was able to answer questions from Board members on the advice of his committee.  The bottom line is that BSE is now so rare in the UK that testing at 30 months does not bring any additional protection to consumers and therefore from a risk perspective, there is no discernable difference between testing at 30 months and 48 months.   

The Board noted that the real protection for consumers is the removal of Specified Risk Material (SRM), which removes parts of the cattle most likely to contain BSE, and the ban on cattle being fed material that contains meat and bone meal.  These important public health measures will remain in place. 

The Board noted SEAC's advice that it was important for surveillance of BSE to remain in place in future in the unlikely event that there is a rise in incidence of the disease.  Subject to a review of current and continued BSE surveillance, the Board agreed to support the change from 30 months to 48 months.

add new comment

BSE

Posted by Mark Bell (not verified) on 28/11/2008 - 19:00

I don't feel confident eating British beef, and have abstained from it in the past and am considering abstaining from it again. By way of review and conclusion, the bottom line is that BSE cases still occur in the UK. This is damning. This is unacceptable from a so called developed and civilized nation, with public financed and elected organizations like the Health Dept, FSA, etc put in responsible positions to protect public health. We have known about BSE for some time now, and we know it is the result of feeding animals an unnatural diet. SIMPLY, give cows, etc their natural organic diet, and make sure the organizational mechanisms are in place country-wide such that this always takes place, with severe penalties for infringement and you will rarely hear of cases of BSE. It's that simple. As in many things with a political element, the simplicity and truth of a matter get buried in rhetoric, posturing and outright stupidity. The result of which is that innocent people and families are destroyed and severely maimed. Does the FSA agree that anything other than a natural organic diet for our animals is a continuation of putting the health of innocent members of the public at risk? If so, what is the FSA doing to urgently bring this about so to safe-guard human life?

BSE

Posted by Jim (not verified) on 27/10/2008 - 14:53

These controls should have been removed much sooner. TSE testing on all cattle could have been carried out over three years ago but the FSA sought to side with the slaughterhouses at the expense of the farming community.
Meat hygiene faces the greatest challenge in its history. How do we provide protection for the consumer while not hindering our industry. I welcome most of the optimisation report but recommendations such as number 27 (investigate with livestock market operators the possibility of arranging sales of slaughter animals to better suit slaugherhouse operations) are ridiculous and only serve to highlight once again how the FSA has allowed itself to be swayed by the influence of big business and how they have no understanding or regard for the agrifood industry.

Talking about SRM controls

Posted by Alvaro (not verified) on 27/10/2008 - 09:55

Dear Andrew;
It is quite correct that the move to change the BSE testing to 48 months instead of 30 has been driven by the evidence and openly discussed and agreed.
However, what your comment failed to explain so profusely, in spite of the fact that you agree that it is the most important control feature for any future onset of TSEs in the country, is how the FSA as an organization, in a move towards cost cutting which has very little to do with science, is moving the responsibility of SRM controls from the Meat Hygiene Service to the meat plants which wether you like it or not poses a conflict of interest for the proper completition of the task.
Your organization has done a very good job to undermine the good work carried out by the Meat Hygiene Service to control BSE in this country all this years. I hope that the FSA will enjoy all the money that are going to save and, most importantly, that they will get it right and there will be no more TSEs in the country. The think that rattle me the most is that no one will be ever hold accountable if they are wrong.