Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2000
PROFESSOR SIR
JOHN KREBS
AND MR
GEOFFREY PODGER
Chairman
1. Sir John, Mr Podger, you are becoming recidivists
in this Committee. We expect, no doubt, to see you from time to
time. This is a joint meeting with the Health Committee because,
obviously, the issues raised by the Phillips Report span the health
and agriculture field. It seemed sensible to do things together
rather than doing the same things separately. Since then, as they
say, one or two events have occurred and perhaps it might be sensible
if we get those dealt with first. Sir John, if I may ask you,
to begin with the very obvious, almost monosyllabic question:
is French beef safe?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Thank you
very much, Chairman. As you will know by now, I do not answer
questions of the kind "Is food X safe" in absolute terms
because I believe there is no such thing as absolute safety of
food. Indeed, Lord Phillips himself says it is not the job of
Government to eliminate risk but to manage risk to acceptable
levels. The question, if I may take the liberty to rephrase it,
is what is the relative risk of imported beef, including French
beef, versus domestically produced beef. That would be an appropriate
question for me to address. On the basis of the information we
have to hand I would have the view, and I believe that the Board
of the Agency would share the view, that the risks from beef imported
from France or indeed other EU countries, provided the regulations
are adhered to, would be no greater than they are from domestically
produced beef or beef products.
2. Your inspectors, who I think are going to
France today, what would they have to find for you to be able
to say categorically "We think that the problem is dealt
with" or equally for you to wish to recommend to the Government
that following precautionary principles it ought to follow the
line of some other Member States and ban it?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) If I could just pick up
on the last point there. Actually when one looks in detail at
what other Member States have done, there are no Member States
that have imposed a complete ban on French beef. There are certain
selective bans on cattle movements, or proposed bans on certain
parts of the animal. The particular focus of our visit to Paris
today is to ask the French how they will deliver the commitment
that they made at the last Agriculture Council meeting not to
export to other countries, including the UK, material which they
are proposing to ban in France. That includes the specified risk
material that they are proposing to ban, an extended list, as
well as beef on the bone. I do not want to prejudge the outcome
of the visit but obviously if the visit comes back with clear
and acceptable levels of explanation as to how the French are
going to deliver on not exporting material, that will give us
a level of reassurance which we might further want to follow up.
If they come back with the answer the French were unable to provide
an answer that was a satisfactory reassurance then we would have
to think further. I do not want to prejudge exactly what we will
do because I want to wait until the outcome of the visits announced
later on today or tomorrow. I would say, also, that any outcome
of that visit announced later on today or tomorrow has to be folded
into other events which are going on. As I am sure you know, Commissioners
Byrne and Fischler are themselves going to make a major announcement
later on this morning on EU wide measures in relation to BSE so
I think our visit is part of a jigsaw which is very rapidly coming
together. One of the points that I would emphasise is that the
Food Standards Agency has a view at the moment about relative
risks and that view we are quite prepared to change as the new
information comes to light. We are not adhering rigidly to a view
in the face of changing evidence, if the evidence does indeed
change as we move forward over the next few hours and days.
3. One of the lessons of the Phillips Report,
I think it is fair to say, was that there was a dislocation between
the political decision taking processes in London and the implementation
in the field, for example, the implementation of regulations in
abattoirs. Do you feel that in order to satisfy yourself you need
to be able to inspect and make sure that what is happening on
the ground in France and Germany corresponds to what the Government
tells you its intentions are?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I think it is important
that correspondence is examined but it is not the job of the Food
Standards Agency to do it, that is the job of the European Commission.
I did have a conversation this morning with Commissioner Byrne
about these very issues and of course the Commission is sending
in an inspection team to France next week, between the 4 and 8
December. I think that is another important part of the jigsaw
of gaining the reassurance, further probing, further investigating
that we will see unfolding over the next week or two. It is important
that in the common markets that we live the competence to inspect
abattoirs and other meat plants in other Member States lies with
the Commission. My view is it is very important the Commission
takes a proactive stance and really delivers its role for the
UK and European consumer. I was emphasising that to Commissioner
Byrne this morning and welcoming the fact that he is indeed taking
a proactive stance.
4. A final point. Have the events of the last
month or so caused you to reflect upon the wisdom or otherwise
of having a European type of Food Standards Agency and how you
might relate to it?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I think the principle of
having a European Food Authority is a very good one because, as
the present BSE situation shows, the consumers in one country
are potentially exposed to risks from the goings-on in other countries.
Therefore to have a proper co-ordination both of the risk assessment
but also the risk management across Europe is a very important
step. The reservation that the UK Government has expressed and
that I share about the nature of the European Food Authority is
that it will be primarily a risk assessment body rather than a
body with a risk assessment and risk management role as we have
in the UK. Right at the very beginning when I went to see Commissioner
Byrne back in March I pressed with him the benefits of the UK
model of folding in assessment, communication and management together.
What I think we need to do now is to ensure as the proposals are
refined that the connection between risk assessment by the European
Food Authority and risk management by the Commission is made very
close and is properly delivered. Yes, I believe it is a good step
and, yes, it will work provided the risk assessment and risk management
side as well as the risk communication are tightly integrated,
as they are indeed in the Food Standards Agency.
Chairman: Mr Hinchliffe who chairs the Health
Committee.
Mr Hinchliffe
5. The UK, over very many years, have exported
to France older cattle. In view of the extent of BSE in British
cattle, do you not find it a little bit surprising the fact that
it is only very recently we have had BSE identified in France?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) The judgment of the experts
is that as in the UK in France there will have been under reporting
in the early stages of the epidemic. What we now see is that France
has implemented a very extensive testing programme, using one
of the approved biochemical screens for BSE, and as a result of
that testing programme they are finding more BSE than there appeared
to be before. What we do not know yet, and we will not know for
some time, is whether the increase that has been seen in the incidence
in France this year is a single step up because of the implementation
of the testing or whether it is a reflection of a growing epidemic.
We simply do not know the answer. We will not know until probably
some time next year or maybe even beyond. I think the implication
of your question was, was there under reporting in France in the
early stages of development of BSE there and the experts, with
whom I have discussed it, including members of SEAC, feel that
there was under reporting there, just as there was under reporting
in the UK in the early stages of the epidemic.
6. We learned a number of lessons in this country,
some very hard lessons. I recall a debate in the Commons in 1996
where I was drawing attention to the practices of certain farmers
in your part of the world, Chairman, who were offloading infected
cattle on to one single central farm where that farmer was claiming
compensation and the rest of the farmers were claiming to be BSE
free.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes.
7. Have you an ability in evaluating what is
happening in other countries, particularly France, to work out
whether that kind of practice is going on as well which inevitably
it will be? You talk about under-reporting in this country and
under-reporting in France, and I accept that, but what we did
see was some highly irresponsible practices. Do you feel in view
of the very hard lessons we have learnt in the UK that any of
these lessons are being picked up by other countries, such as
France, in their dealings with this problem?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I think one of the roles
we can play—as other countries within Europe realise that
they have a BSE problem, which they did not necessarily think
they had—is to share the experience we have had, just of
the kind you describe. The Board has recognised that not all the
loopholes have been closed off in the UK. In our review of the
BSE controls which we have carried out over the last six months
we draw attention—just to give one example—to the
issue of private kills where it is possible, but we cannot quantify
this, there is beef getting into the food chain which has not
been subject to the strict BSE controls because it has been killed
privately or in unlicensed abattoirs. I think we should not claim
that we are absolutely perfect ourselves. We have made huge strides
and we should be willing to share, and keen to share with other
countries the lessons we have learned and to help them to avoid
some of the pitfalls that we fell into back in the 1980s and early
1990s. I cannot reassure you that these things are not happening
in France, I cannot reassure you that they are not happening in
the UK but I do think we have to be proactive in explaining to
others what we have learned ourselves.
Mrs Roe
8. You have explained to us the processes by
which you are watching current developments in France. I wonder
if you could perhaps put a bit more meat on the bone, if I can
put it like that, by telling us what assessments you have made
of the BSE situation in France and what advice you are giving
the Government and consumers here?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes. We are very actively
checking, that is the first thing to say, we are not complacent
and we are not passively receiving information. As you realise
from our visit to France today, we are being proactive. Nevertheless
we have to start from the information we have got, that is my
opinion, we cannot start from hypothesis. We start from the facts.
What we do have are very regular updates, working closely with
colleagues in MAFF. I have to emphasise we have a very close relationship
with MAFF colleagues in this area. We receive regular updates
of the incidence figures for BSE in France. We have advice from
the scientific experts in SEAC on the situation in France. I have
asked SEAC, they met yesterday and they agreed to set up a special
sub-group that will convene next Tuesday at my behest to look
specifically at the question of the risk assessment for imported
beef. One is focusing on France but one must remember there are
other countries in the European Community with BSE. Ireland has
a higher incidence than France, for example. There are meat products
as well as meats which contain beef and meat products may contain
beef from any European country. We do not know whether an Italian
salami or a German wurst contains French beef or not, it is very
difficult to identify without a country of origin label. Looking
at all of that together I am going to ask the sub-group of SEAC
to consider what we can do further to refine our risk assessment
and what further information we ought to be gathering to help
with the risk assessment by the experts.
9. Are you offering any advice or have you been
asked to give advice and assurances to the French?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Through the Commission
discussions we have been offering advice. Indeed, MAFF at the
last Agriculture Council made a very explicit offer of advice
from the UK and commended the lessons from Phillips to other Member
States. My own staff, the officials of the Agency, of course,
are regularly in Brussels discussing with Commission colleagues
and colleagues from other countries. Part of the visit to France
today by officials will, I hope, begin a connection which will
also be another route for advice. I am in regular contact with
the French Food Standards Agency myself.
10. I noticed from a press release which you
put out on 10 November you actually said—and I am quoting—"The
FSA is formally requesting the EU Commission to take action on
the problems of cross-contamination especially in countries with
a known risk of BSE".
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes.
11. Is it actually within your remit to request
action from the Commission? Should not the Ministers ask the Commission
for action if they accept your advice? Would you clarify that?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Geoffrey, would you like
to clarify that.
(Mr Podger) Yes, I think you are right to say that
formally an approach would normally be made through ministers
and that is perfectly proper. This advice came up in the context
of our BSE controls review. As you yourself have said, it is a
fundamental part of the UK's position to try and help other countries,
both in their interest and ours. We felt quite free to pass this
view on at an official level. I would anticipate it being followed
up formally by the Minister in the way you are suggesting.
Mr Jack
12. In your inquiries will you be asking the
French why they are still banning British beef into France if
we believe that we have all the controls that ought to be in place
in place and given that the French have erected their own scientific
view to justify their position in banning our beef, if we are
to have a European wide approach that you described earlier, how
are we going to reconcile this selective use of science which
makes compatibility and assessment of risk difficult?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) I think, just answering
the second part first, that is precisely the role of the European
Food Authority when it comes into being, to ensure that we do
not get disparate interpretations of the science and allow justification
then for Member States to go their own way. I recognise—as
you know I am a scientist myself—that at any one moment
in time there is a diversity of scientific thinking. Scientists
sometimes simply disagree about things but nevertheless there
is usually, at a moment in time, a centre of gravity of scientific
opinion, a modal point. I think one of the major roles of the
European Food Authority will be to ensure that modal value of
scientific opinion is the one that influences the actions within
the European Community as a whole. On the first part of your question,
will we be asking the French why they are still banning UK beef,
the answer is no we will not be asking that because that is not
really within our remit. That is now being decided in the European
courts through due process but it is not really up to the Food
Standards Agency to ask the French about their unilateral measures.
It does illustrate, of course, the danger of unilateral measures
when you move outside the coherent framework. Geoffrey, I do not
know whether you would like to add anything?
(Mr Podger) No. I have to say we will certainly this
morning in the Paris visit be accompanied by colleagues from the
British Embassy in Paris who I think ask the question that Mr
Jack raises frequently of the French authorities. I would be very
surprised if it was not raised.
13. You may have got a flavour of some of the
answers that they have been getting. Do you have any sympathy
with the French view as to the basis of their banning what we
argue is the safest beef in Europe if not the world?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) We do not see any scientific
justification for their ban on British beef.
Mr Todd
14. The concern that is less readily wrapped
in the Union Jack would be the possibility that meat legally imported
into this country for processing, which would not be fit for human
consumption, might be released into the human marketplace within
this country by someone unscrupulous or perhaps making a mistake.
That appears to be a legitimate concern that meat over 30 months
old can be legally imported not for human consumption or to be
re-exported and might come back into our food chain.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes, that is a legitimate
concern and it is one that again came out very strongly from our
BSE controls review, both the general concern about the standards
for imports but also particularly in relation to imported meat
or meat products, meat which finds its way into meat products
from the UK. That is a difficult area to enforce. As you know,
we have instructed the local authorities to step up their enforcement
of the over 30 month rule for imported meat for human consumption.
For carcass meat, that is in relative terms straight forward,
I am not saying it is easy but it is relatively straight forward.
For meat that comes in to be processed into meat products here
or is actually imported as meat products, maybe it is lasagne
to be sold in pubs or something like that, it is much more difficult.
We will await with interest the feedback that we get from local
authorities over the next few weeks as to how they have been doing
as a result of our instructions to step up their enforcement in
this area. I fully recognise this is a difficult area to be sure
one is enforcing fully and effectively.
15. Would it not be easier to just simply put
an over 30 month ban on any imports for any purpose into this
country?
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes.
16. That would not necessarily deal with the
importation of already processed products where it would be impossible
to identify it.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes.
17. But it would place a clear legal barrier
which would mean that no-one in this country, unless they were
set on breaking the law, would be able to exploit such a loophole.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) That is a perfectly valid
question, whether the rules could not be changed so that the rule
relates to importation rather than human consumption. As I understand
it, and I do not claim to be an expert in trade issues, there
is a trade dimension to this because the ban on OTM meat for human
consumption is an argument on health risk grounds which the Commission,
although it is on the fringes of what is allowed, has accepted.
The ban on trade is more difficult because then it is no longer
seen necessarily as a human health argument.
18. One could legitimately wrap it up as being
based on a health concern of meat which has leaked into the food
chain.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes. That would be the
basis of the argument. We have undertaken to look again at the
over 30 month rule. Geoffrey would you like to elaborate?
(Mr Podger) Yes. I think the point is well taken.
I think we have to be very clear that the main difficulty with
enforcing the over 30 month rule is there is no scientific test
you can do to determine it, so you are dependent on documentation.
Traceability through documentation is an inherently more difficult
route. It is open to more fraudulent practices. Even tracing back
valid documentation can be difficult for obvious reasons. Our
view would be, I think, that is the prime difficulty and that
prime difficulty would remain if you actually inspected the meat
at the port rather than as we currently do at its—forgive
the phrase—next port of call in the UK, ie the warehouse,
the wholesaler, whatever. I think that difficulty remains. As
Sir John has said, we are looking at this again and we have not
ruled out that option because it does seem to actually offer real
advantage. I think it is right, as Sir John has said, that the
Community will probably find that an option less acceptable from
their point of view but that in itself is not an argument for
us not seeking to pursue it if we become convinced there is real
value. As I say, there is an overriding difficulty which is not
removed by it.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Could I just add a small
supplementary. As Geoffrey Podger has said, there is no biochemical
test to distinguish old meat from young meat. However it is the
view of some members of the Agency's Board that we ought to be
asking the question as to whether a biochemical test can be developed.
It may not be beyond the wit of modern science to come up with
a test for old meat versus young meat. I think we should also
pursue that option.
Mr Marsden
19. Following on the line of questioning from
Mr Todd, you have admitted that you think there has been under
reporting for France and elsewhere of BSE.
(Professor Sir John Krebs) Yes.
|
