Examination of Witnesses (Questions 43-59)
19 JANUARY 2004
DR JON
BELL AND
DR ANDREW
WADGE
Chairman: Welcome to the Committee. You
have heard the industry side of the story. We want now to explore
the Food Standards Agency's side of this argument, which I must
say is fascinating for us to hear about.
Q43 Mr Drew: Can we start with the science
because obviously where the breakdown in relationship comes from
is on a scientific rationale. I think it would be useful if someone
could say when you first suspected there was a problem, why you
acted in the way you did and how the science that you believe
is in place backs up the actions that you have taken.
Dr Bell: The problem first came
to our attention as the laboratories in Northern Ireland and CEFAS
began to see these unusual reactions in the mice that they were
using for their standard DSP test. The mice tended to get into
distress and die in a number of cases very much quicker than had
been traditionally observed when using that type of test. This
seemed to point to some possible new phenomenon which had to be
taken seriously as it might point to the emergence of a new toxin.
Q44 Mr Drew: What is the hypothesis which
you believe to be the case which is showing that there are these
atypical reactions?
Dr Bell: The difficulty is that
we have no firm hypothesis on what is causing this. Using the
mouse test, which is the definitive test that is laid down in
EU law, where there is any doubt between results from the various
tests that are available, we are seeing reactions which suggest
the possibility of a toxin. There can be other possible explanations
as well but the difficulty at this stage is that we cannot rule
out anything, including the fact that it may be a toxin.
Q45 Alan Simpson: It sounds a bit like
bovine TB to me but we will not go along that path. This Committee
spent long enough on that. Are you absolutely convinced that there
is a novel toxin in existence?
Dr Bell: No. We do not know.
Q46 Chairman: Were you then convinced
there was a novel toxin?
Dr Bell: No. We have never been
convinced it is a novel toxin because we have never had the definitive
evidence that one would need to say that it was.
Q47 Chairman: Did you think it was a
new toxin at the time?
Dr Bell: We thought it was a possibility.
We took advice from Professor Yasumoto and from Canadian experts.
They had seen a range of various toxins over the years. We described
the position to Professor Yasumoto and we sent him an extract.
He reproduced, in his own laboratory, the same reaction with mice.
We sent a video of the test mice to the Canadian experts. They
both said, "This looks like a neurotoxin."
Q48 Mr Drew: Can I be clear about what
determined the sequence of actions? You persuaded the industry
that it needed to shut down its beds?
Dr Bell: No.
Q49 Mr Drew: Can you take me through
it? I am very unclear what actions you took.
Dr Bell: We are required to take
certain actions under EU law if we believe that there is a potential
threat to human health arising from shellfish. The mouse test
gives you certain results and you are required to interpret those
as positive or negative. Once one gets what are classed as positive
results—and this looked like a very firm positive, but in
unusual circumstances; it certainly fitted the requirements for
positive in the interpretation criteria laid down—we communicate
that with the local authorities whose job it is to take action
locally to protect human health. That is the sequence. Any subsequent
action to be taken is their decision but obviously it would be
difficult to make any other decision than the one that they have
customarily made to close the beds until such times as negatives
start coming through on repeat tests.
Q50 Mr Drew: What is the overall picture
in terms of people being poisoned by eating shellfish? Is this
a common problem?
Dr Bell: No. Thankfully, it is
a very uncommon problem. We have had very little of it in this
country over the years but there have been some very marked outbreaks
in some other countries. As a result of the toxin that the Irish
discovered in recent times, there was a number of people made
quite ill and the Canadians had a very severe outbreak a few years
ago. It is certainly a possibility. You could argue that the reason
we have not had it in this country is because we have been very
careful about how we have operated the protection regime that
we have, but I cannot be certain of that one way or another. We
certainly have not experienced thankfully what others have experienced
in this area.
Q51 Mr Drew: In terms of the evidence
of the previous people, we could be importing this material from
the Netherlands. If there was an incident of poisoning, we could
act but we could not take a precautionary principle stand against
those importing.
Dr Bell: Unfortunately, the position
is difficult in that regard because we are working within the
Community on this, as you know, and the rules supposedly apply
across the whole Community in an even handed way. The position
we have taken on this is that we want to protect human health
of course. That has to be our primary role but we also want to
be proportionate in the way that we are doing this, as far as
we are able. We have taken the view that these sorts of issues
can have chronic effects as well as acute effects and small amounts
over a short period of time are not likely to be the issue here.
It is likely to be longer term effects over an extended period
of time. Provided one acts reasonably swiftly on closing beds
and provided we are not talking about similar problems elsewhere
that would involve consumption of large quantities, we think we
have application of the precautionary principle about right. It
is a matter of judgment.
Q52 Mr Drew: What is the minimum period
of time that you think you have to enact the precautionary principle?
Dr Bell: Usually, we try to do
all the testing from the collection through to the testing within
one week, with the collection and the despatch of samples occurring
in the early part of the week from Monday onwards, arriving at
the laboratories by Wednesday and results by Friday, temporary
prohibition orders being put on at that time if necessary.
Q53 Mr Drew: How do you respond to the
view that the industry has advanced that may result in legal action—we
hope not—that you do not have the powers to impose closure,
notwithstanding you do not do that, but you are making a strong
recommendation? Do you feel confident you have the powers?
Dr Bell: The legal powers are
most certainly there. Further than that, we are required to act
in a certain way as laid down by EU law. You do the test. If you
get what is classed as a positive and therefore there is a concern
that there may be an effect on human health, you are required
to take the necessary steps to ensure that you control that risk
and that means closure of beds.
Q54 Chairman: There was a change in the
laboratory doing it from Aberdeen to CEFAS. Why was that? Was
it as a result of a competitive bid?
Dr Bell: Yes. It was two fold.
Firstly, we had a visit from the Food and Veterinary Office in
1999 to look at the way we were applying the EU regulations and
they made a number of criticisms, the principal one of which was
that we were not doing enough sampling, by a long way in their
view. The levels needed to be stepped up considerably.
Q55 Chairman: Who visited you?
Dr Bell: The Food and Veterinary
Office is the European policeman, if you like. They are the European
local authority. They check that you are applying the law in the
correct way and they report their findings back to the Commission
and the Commission could at the extreme take you to the European
Court.
Q56 Chairman: They put the fear of God
into you?
Dr Bell: They are obviously a
very powerful body and one takes careful note of what they say.
We do not always accept everything they say but in this case they
said that they thought that the extent and the timing of the collection
and testing of samples were not adequate to cover the risk.
Q57 Chairman: That is not an argument
about the methodology, is it?
Dr Bell: This was nothing to do
with the methodology. This was to do with how frequently and how
much sampling and testing were being carried out. We took the
view that we should increase the amount of testing as it was not
at a very high level at that time. It became appropriate also,
since there had never been any competitive tendering and these
are fairly large contracts, to put the work out generally for
tendering.
Q58 Chairman: This was a cheaper bid?
Dr Bell: No, not necessarily.
It was judged against a whole range of criteria by an independent
group.
Q59 Chairman: Was it cheaper?
Dr Bell: I cannot say. That certainly
was not the deciding factor. It was to do with their ability to
deliver and its timeliness.
| 
