Memorandum submitted by the City and County
of Swansea (M18)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This submission is made on behalf of
the City and County of Swansea, a Welsh unitary authority with
responsibility for enforcing Food Safety legislation. The Council
is responsible for the monitoring of classified harvesting areas
in its area and is also involved in the DSP/PSP/ASP monitoring
programme.
1.2 The main area for the commercial harvesting
of shellfish is the Burry Inlet. This is the tidal channel of
the River Loughor, forming the boundary between the City and County
of Swansea (with responsibilities for the South side of the Inlet)
and its neighbouring authority of Carmarthenshire County Council
(with responsibilities for the North side of the Inlet).
1.3 The Burry Inlet shellfish industry is
worth millions of pounds annually and unlike other areas of the
United Kingdom harvesting is undertaken on a year round basis
ie there is no closed season. Gatherers move freely between the
two sides of the Inlet dependant upon local conditions, and both
authorities work closely together to ensure consistency of enforcement.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 In line with other local authorities
with classified shellfish harvesting areas, the City and County
of Swansea has submitted samples of live shellfish and sea water
in order to comply with the agreed DSP/ASP/PSP sampling protocol
issued by Department of Health (subsequently Food Standards Agency
Wales). The Authority is responsible for complying with the sampling
protocol and must submit samples to the accredited laboratory
designated by Food Standards Agency. Since June 2001 this has
been the CEFAS laboratory at Weymouth.
2.2 On 11 July 2001 Carmarthenshire County
Council were notified that a sample of cockles submitted that
week had proved positive for the presence of DSP. Carmarthenshire
immediately issued a Temporary Prohibition Order (TPO) for that
area of the Burry Inlet falling within their jurisdiction. At
that time it was agreed by both authorities and FSA Wales that
one positive result from either side of the Inlet would result
in the closure of the whole Inlet. Consequently on 12th July 2001
the City and County of Swansea issued a TPO for the area of the
Burry Inlet falling within its jurisdiction.
2.3 From July 2001 cockle sampling was undertaken
at weekly intervals to try to obtain the necessary two consecutive
weekly negative results necessary to lift the TPO. With the exception
of a short period in November 2001 when the TPO on the North side
of the Inlet was lifted by Carmarthenshire and then re-instated
at the advice of the FSA Wales, the whole of the Burry Inlet was
closed for gathering from 12 July 2001 to 17 May 2002, and again
from 12 June 2002 to 1 August 2002.
2.4 During this time the local gatherers
and processors suffered considerable commercial and financial
hardship, not knowing from one week to the next whether they would
be able to work, or where they could obtain their raw material
for processing. This was compounded by the frustration of not
knowing the source of the toxin and there being no identifiable
pattern to the positive and negative results being obtained from
the total of 7 sampling points across the whole of the Burry Inlet.
Also of growing concern to enforcement officers and
gatherers was the toxicity of the toxin itself. Although originally
classified as Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) by the testing
laboratory, information was obtained from FSA Wales in a letter
dated 1 February 2002 which indicated:
"Whilst the tests for DSP have been positive
since July, because of the prolonged toxicity and some unusual
aspects of the positive tests, further work has been carried out
at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
(CEFAS) to investigate the toxicity. Their tests so far have confirmed
the toxicity but suggest that it is not due to classical DSP toxins.
They have been asked to put together further proposals for investigating
the problem and this is therefore an area where there might be
room for a collaborative study."
This same letter also advised that:
"The cockles are showing evidence of marked
toxicity in the tests and therefore the Agency considers it essential
to continue to keep the beds closed whilst trying to find out
what is causing the problem."
2.5 Since the start of the problem in July
2001 the authority had worked consistently to ensure that food
safety was not compromised. This had entailed working closely
with officers at FSA Wales regarding renewal of TPOs after the
initial 28 day period, and in ensuring that sampling results were
passed promptly to the gatherers.
However gatherers were becoming increasingly sceptical
about the sampling methods, and felt that the mouse bioassay test
being promoted by FSA was flawed, in that it was the effect of
the test itself that was causing the positive result, and not
the presence of any toxin. Officers were at times subjected to
pressure from the gatherers, who threatened to gather cockles
despite the bans being in place. Gatherers also staged a media
event where they ate cockles allegedly gathered from a prohibited
area to demonstrate to the public their belief that there was
no toxin present.
2.6 At a meeting with representatives of
the local shellfish industry at the end of July 2002 concern was
expressed that the sampling regime for the Burry Inlet was more
onerous than in other areas of the UK.
In support of their argument the following statistics
were produced:
— The Wash had a fishery acreage of
164,635, is divided into three zones, and has three testing points
for DSP.
— The Thames had a fishery acreage
of 288,123, is divided into 20 zones, and has four testing points
for DSP.
— The Burry Inlet had a fishery acreage
of 11,184, is not zoned, and has seven testing points for DSP.
2.7 Following this meeting the authority
proposed that the Burry Inlet be split into three zones (these
were North, South East and South West) for the purposes of sampling,
and that a positive result in any of the zones would not result
in the closure of the other two zones. It was felt that this compromise
would help to alleviate the considerable financial hardship being
experienced by local industry without compromising public health.
2.8 This proposal, which was initially resisted
by FSA Wales, was put into effect in August 2002.
3. CURRENT POSITION
3.1 The zoning of the Burry Inlet in August
2002 has meant that the gatherers have had more opportunity to
gather, although there have still been some weeks where the whole
of the Inlet has been closed. At the present time there have been
no positive results on either side of the Burry Inlet since 13
October 2003.
3.2 However hand raking is an important
part of the environmental management of the Burry Inlet ecology,
and overcrowding and death of cockles during the long periods
of closure, together with the extremely hot weather of summer
2003, are having a detrimental effect on the future viability
of the harvesting areas.
3.3 Research funded by the FSA to identify
the toxin and assess risk to consumers is ongoing. As part of
this, the FSA invited Professor Yasumoto (one of the world's experts
on marine bio-toxins) to the United Kingdom from Japan in order
that he could observe the response in the mice during the mouse
bioassay. The Professor observed the test being carried out and
was of the opinion that it could well be a novel toxin causing
the observed response. He offered to undertake further tests on
positive sample at his laboratory in Japan, provided that sufficient
sample material could be transported to him. Unfortunately, to
date this has not been possible.
3.4 In July 2003 the City and County of
Swansea was one of six food authorities in England and Wales threatened
with judicial review by representatives of the cockle industry
on the grounds that their closures of the gathering areas were
outside the scope of the legislation.
3.5 Industry representatives are still firmly
of the opinion that the increase in positive results since summer
2001, which coincided with the testing work for England and Wales
being moved to the CEFAS laboratory, are a result of laboratory
error.
3.6 As a result of pressure from both industry
and local authorities the FSA produced in October 2003 a report
by Professor Makin which identified weaknesses at all three laboratories
used by FSA throughout the UK for shellfish testing. The FSA conclude
that the methodology of the mouse bioassay test is not responsible
for the positive results.
3.7 The shellfish industry have commissioned
their own review of these reports by Dr McKenzie at Integrin,
and draw different conclusions to the FSA. They remain firmly
of the view that the mouse bioassay as carried out by the laboratory
at CEFAS is causing the positive results, and that the cockles
are toxin free.
3.8 As a result food authorities have felt
it necessary to commission their own scientific advisor to obtain
an impartial interpretation of these detailed technical discussions
and papers. The City and County of Swansea is concerned about
the weaknesses of the laboratory testing regimes identified in
Professor Makin's report.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 The Council believes it has acted diligently
in its enforcement role, has striven to ensure public safety whilst
recognising the commercial pressures faced by the local shellfish
industry, and has continued despite local difficulties to act
in accordance with the advice of the Food Standards Agency.
January 2004
| 
