Memorandum submitted by Boston Borough
Council (M8)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The shellfish Industry is an important historical
and vibrant part of the life of the Borough of Boston and neeeds
to be maintained. So too does Food Safety and Public Health.
There is no clear evidence to support a conclusion
as to the reasons for the atypical results from the mouse bioassay
in shelfish testing. The Council make the following recommendations:
— A fundamental precursor to any study
of atypical results is the creation of clear definitions of positive,
negative and atypical results since, in the absence of these Food
Authorities are unnecessarily exposed in having to determine whether
or not to issue a TPO. It should be urged upon the European Union
that any such definition should be Europe wide.
— Care needs to be taken with some
of the scientific evidence submitted particularly with regard
to false conclusions being drawn. There is however an urgent need
for further research to come up with an explanation for the atypical
results which are having such an adverse effect of the shellfish
industry and local communities. It has to be remembered that this
could still result in a new toxin being discovered.
INTRODUCTION
This is the submission on behalf of Boston Borough
Council. It should be read in conjunction with the submission
on behalf of King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council (KL&WNBC),
which also forms part of the Wash inlet and with whom we have
worked closely throughout. KL&WNBC made a number of recommendations
as follows:
— Recognition, including financial
recognition should be given for the role that just a few food
authorities across the nation play in monitoring this important
international industry.
— That there be an urgent review of
the methodology used in all UK laboratories with a view to ruling
out any risk of results obtained being affected by testing methods
as opposed to the shellfish product and that EFRA urge a standardised
method across Europe based on the MBA.
— That while the principle of the offer
of voluntary testing is welcomed, the Council believes that the
disadvantages of the CIVIT proposals outweigh the benefits at
this time and recommend that the industry put resources in together
with the FSA and food authorities to seek to improve the reference
method and in the future to look a new alternative and improved
reference method rather than a raft of different tests with different
results.
— That a partnership be developed between
the FSA, food authorities and the Industry to expedite proper
interpretation of atypical results and concerns over methodology
and UK laboratories and sampling procedures being adopted. That
this partnership be given genuine delegation to secure joint working
between the three groups and that this partnership develop to
look at other areas in due course.
— That a genuinely independent National
Reference Laboratory be established for the UK. If it is to remain
based at Aberdeen then it should be wholly independent from the
FRS and that it should undertake urgent work to carry out tests
to discover a conclusive explanation for these atypical results
as a matter of priority and should be accountable to the FSA,
Food Authorities and the Industry in that regard.
This Council would support those recommendations
and have included further recommendations in this report arising
from local experience, which has been similarly shared by KL&WNBC.
These submissions have also been made, having
read the joint submission on behalf of Canterbury City Council,
City & County of Swansea and the Corporation of London, the
contents of which this Council generally support and in particular
agree the background to the issue in that report which is fully
accepted and referred to as background to our submission but not
repeated here.
SUBMISSIONS
1. As one of the Local Authorities likely
to be the subject of a judicial review in respect of actions in
placing Temporary Prohibition Orders (TPOs) on shellfish fisheries
within our jurisdiction it is prudent that our observations on
the current sampling and testing regime and, more importantly,
the actions we are obliged to take following a positive atypical
DSP result are made.
2. Over the past two years this Authority
has issued 21 TPOs, the effect of which has been to put in jeopardy
the livelihoods of the local fishermen.
3. For food authorities since 2001 the atypical
DSP issue has become a major drain on resources. Sampling, while
necessary, is expensive, time consuming and often difficult where
boat hire is needed. When closures are in place this is a weekly
process. There is also the enforcement of closures and advertising
of the problem locally. Enforcement is not easy particularly in
a large sea area when most food authorities do not maintain their
own sampling vessels or crew. In the Wash we rely heavily on Eastern
Sea Fisheries to deliver this service for us. In addition the
dispute over the cause of the atypical problem has meant repeated
meetings in London and the appointment of Counsel for legal advice
and a scientific advisor. Food Authorities have a legal duty to
sample and enforce the legislation and so are a key player in
the process but receive no additional funding for this particularly
expensive area of food enforcement.
4. Whilst we and the other Authorities involved
in the judicial review have followed the letter of the law and
instructions from the Food Standards Agency and placed TPOs on
fisheries immediately a positive result has been notified this
action has been carried out with little confidence. Until it was
"zoned" recently one positive result anywhere in The
Wash necessitated closure of the whole of this fishery and even
now a single positive result from a particular zone necessitates
closure of that zone. This is hardly representative when the zone
may be over ten miles in length. Furthermore, we are advised that
results are unpredictable and it is likely two samples taken at
the same time from the same place may give conflicting results.
Needless to say such anomalies hardly give officers from the Authorities
confidence in their formal actions and, not surprisingly, the
fishermen are unconvinced by our actions.
5. It is worthy of note that in July 2003
a positive atypical DSP result was notified to us in respect of
one of The Wash cockle fisheries. When the result was received
the fleet had already left port to fish the particular cockle
bed. Later that day their catch was landed and legal advice we
sought told us that these "live animals" could not be
seized or detained in their present "live" form.
6. The cockles were processed at a local
cannery whereupon we were able to detain them for further investigation
as they then fell within the definition of "food for human
consumption".
7. With the agreement of the FSA and the
CEFAS laboratory samples of the detained cockles (four cans from
27,000) were sent to the CEFAS Laboratory for testing using the
same mouse bioassay test performed on live shellfish. The result
of each can tested was negative and the FSA authorised their release
for human consumption.
8. Understandably the fishermen questioned
why the fishery from which these cockles had been harvested was
now the subject of a TPO preventing further fishing, yet the end
product (after processing) had been declared fit for human consumption.
This casts serious doubt over the whole sampling and testing regime.
9. Alongside this there is a need for a
clear definition across all UK laboratories and indeed across
the whole of Europe as to what constitutes a positive or a negative
result. Indeed it is, we would submit impossible to clearly declare
an atypical result when there is not a clear definition of a positive
and a negative result consistently used across laboratories. Any
such definitions should include the number of mice affected and
an agreed time frame, presumably 24 hours as the European preferred
rate which has not been consistently applied in the UK.
RECOMMENDATION
A fundamental precursor to any study of atypical
results is the creation of clear definitions of positive, negative
and atypical results since, in the absence of these Food Authorities
are unnecessarily exposed in having to determine whether or not
to issue a TPO. It should be urged upon the European Union that
any such definition should be Europe wide.
10. There is a suggestion in the scientific
evidence on behalf of the Industry that the absence of any known
toxin or toxic algae is evidence in itself against a toxin being
the cause of the atypical response. Evidence from Ireland in 1995
when azaspiracid was first detected, demonstrates that this is
a false conclusion since there too no other known toxins or toxic
algae was found.
RECOMMENDATION
Care needs to be taken with some of the scientific
evidence submitted particularly with regard to false conclusions
being drawn. There is however an urgent need for further research
to come up with an explanation for the atypical results which
are having such an adverse effect of the shellfish industry and
local communities. It has to be remembered that this could still
result in a new toxin being discovered.
11. CONCLUSION
Three key issues arise from the recommendations
in this report. The need to remember the reason behind testing
and resultant TPO's—namely food safety and public health
and if further treatment of the product renders it safe then the
product should be capable of release on to the market in that
treated form. Linked to this is the need for clearer definitions
of positive, negative and atypical results and there needs to
be care taken with false conclusions being drawn from the scientific
research. To date all we can conclude is that we do not know what
is the reason for these atypical results and further research
is urgently needed.
January 2004
| 
