Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-117)
19 JANUARY 2004
DR JON
BELL AND
DR ANDREW
WADGE
Q100 Alan Simpson: Have you done the
work that made the submissions? The Committee receives evidence
in all sorts of circumstances where people are saying to us that
someone else should do the work. Have you done the work? Have
you put any proposition up at a European level that would allow
that moving on process to be driven by us?
Dr Bell: Yes. We think this has
to be something that we work across the Community on but we are
doing work at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, developing
these methods. We have asked them and they have been looking to
see if they can find a chemical profile for what might be in the
samples that are giving the atypical results. They are seeing
a lot of material there but they cannot be certain which of that
might be giving rise to these results, if at all, so there is
work to be done there, but we are doing work in this area and
we are urging the European reference laboratory to coordinate
action across Europe. We are now beginning to get some action
on this and there is a working party coming up very shortly that
we shall certainly be taking a strong lead in.
Q101 Alan Simpson: We have not got to
a point of putting any counter or replacement proposals on the
table for consideration about this different European approach
that you say we need?
Dr Bell: We have not put down
definitive methods on the table and said, "That is what we
should go with." Such methods do exist in some cases and
we would certainly support those but we have not got that far
because we have been trying to raise enough interest to get the
matter properly discussed so that we can move in that direction
as swiftly as possible. I think it is a matter of degree. It is
certainly not a lack of intent.
Q102 Alan Simpson: If we were trying
to wrap all of this up, it seems to me that from the industry
perspective and from an ethical perspective we have serious doubts
raised both about the validity of this form of testing and the
consistency and rigour of the testing process. The biggest criticism,
I suppose, that has been levelled at the door of the FSA is that
you have used the precautionary principle not to protect the public
but to protect your own perineum. I wonder whether you can justify
the size of the outcomes of the tests that you are now conducting
to say, "We have a case for a ban."
Dr Bell: That really is the nub
of the matter. The principal difference between the position we
have taken and the one that the industry has taken, as we have
heard today, is that we are not ruling out a whole range of possible
explanations for this, including the presence of a possible toxin.
If that was to be the case, it would obviously be our responsibility
to try and protect public health as much as we can from the presence
of that toxin. We do not know for certain there is a toxin there.
We are doing work to try and be clear about that, but while we
do not know we are very much minded to take the advice that was
presented by Lord Phillips in his report that one should take
precautionary action to protect public health in areas of uncertainty
of this type. We think there is a range of possible explanations.
That is one of them. The way I see it from the industry point
of view is that they seem to have firmly ruled that out and I
cannot see the evidence for firmly ruling that out.
Q103 Chairman: Why was the Scottish Food
Standards Agency more accommodating than you? When the Aberdeen
laboratory began to test in the same way as CEFAS was testing,
they too started killing mice and then they reverted back to their
former procedure, with the consent of the Scottish Food Standards
Agency.
Dr Bell: They certainly were.
They are part of us as a whole because we are a UK body and the
director of Scotland reports to me. The position there was that,
in the hands of the people in the Aberdeen laboratory, using the
standardised method that was brought in in June—this was
before we resolved all the issues and brought in a better one
later in the year—it was felt that there was likely to be
more solvent in there than they thought was appropriate. They
felt they could smell it in the final extract. Clearly, to use
that on animals was contrary to their Home Office licence. If
they felt there was a risk they might be killing the animals through
having too much solvent present, they should not do it, so they
paused at that point, consulted FSA Scotland and said, "Should
we carry on or not?" and clearly the advice was, "No,
you should not carry on until you have satisfied yourself that
you are preparing the samples as rigorously as possible with minimisation
of solvent." Further work has been done to ensure that we
have reached that stage now, where everybody is content they can
operate the method effectively in their own laboratories to achieve
that.
Q104 Chairman: Has there been a report
by the government chemist on the procedures? It is my understanding
that there has been. Can we have that report?
Dr Bell: The work that has been
carried out at the government chemist, which we commissioned,
has been looking to see whether we could chemically identify a
new toxin in the extracts. They have done quite a lot of work
looking at the chromatographic profiles that they are finding,
comparing those with other profiles they have had, to see whether
they can find something new in there that may then warrant further
investigation.
Q105 Chairman: Have they?
Dr Bell: They have found a whole
range of unexplained peaks and they need to do further work now
to see whether any one of those may be the reason for the atypical
effect and then whether this amounts to a new toxin. They have
done quite a lot of work but they need to do more. That is the
work they have been concentrating on doing. Clearly, if they were
to identify a peak as being the cause and it was a toxin, they
would not only demonstrate a new toxin but simultaneously they
would provide a chemical method for it, so it would be a very
powerful outcome if it could be achieved. We are too early on
in the process to be able to draw any conclusions, I think.
Q106 Chairman: Alan mentioned people
being silenced. This is a scientific argument, is it not? You
need the exchange of information between scientists and specialists
so that you can get a common ground of understanding. I have had
passed to me a letter which was from Dr Wadge which says, "Godfrey
Howard", who has given evidence, "has been involved
with the Scottish monitoring programme for shellfish toxins."
If, as you suggest, he has been keeping you informed of progress
on FSA funded contracts, he has been breaching the confidentiality
clause of the FRS contract with the FSA in releasing early preliminary
results to third parties. That seems to me totally undesirable.
This is an argument between scientists in which you need the exchange
of information.
Dr Bell: The position is always
the same. It depends what work is being done. If the work is just
being overseen to see that it is being done correctly, that seems
perfectly in order and is a matter between the contractor and
the laboratory doing the work. Once results start to appear and
they are properly checked and they are robust, I think it is absolutely
right that everybody should have access to them and discuss them.
It is a matter of argument as to what stage of the process that
is. If you release results literally as they come off the bench,
you are prone to finding that you have errors in there and starting
all manner of hares running unnecessarily. It is the way that
scientists normally work. They like to have their results looked
at within their laboratory. They like to go over them themselves
and they like to be reasonably satisfied with them before they
expose them to the gaze of their peers. I think that is perfectly
in order. My argument is that you do not release them absolutely
at day one but you release them as quickly as you can, the necessary
people having satisfied themselves that they do not contain errors.
Q107 Alan Simpson: Is not that one of
the big criticisms that runs through the allegations made against
the FSA that, by and large, you had to be dragged into openness
in terms of inconsistencies in the methodology? Whether it is
backed up with the formal threat that it is a breach of the confidentiality
clause or not, both the timescale and the processes that you work
to have been much more focused around defending that original
decision that you made than checking the rigours of the scientific
method.
Dr Bell: No. It has been very
much focused on protecting public health. That is where we have
come from all along and that obviously has been our driver. I
make no apology for that. To that extent, we had to take note
of what was coming out of here, even if other people quite rightly
had doubts about various aspects of it. We had to say, "We
will look at what the other aspects are but in the meantime we
have to continue to go down the precautionary path because we
cannot just pause and put the whole thing on ice while we investigate
methodologies and all the rest of it." We are being faced
with positive results in accordance with the tests that the EU
require and we have to decide what to do with those positive results.
We decided we had to take precautionary action on the basis of
them, but we have always acknowledged that the methodologies are
not ideal. We know the biological test is not ideal in itself.
We know that standard operating procedures did not exist, so there
have always been areas that needed further investigation and we
have tried to run all these investigations in parallel. It takes
time as the Irish demonstrated when they did it. It took them
a number of years and I know we have heard that to some extent
there might have been some foot dragging there but from what we
found out, in discussing it with the scientists, these really
are difficult problems to crack and they do take time to get to
the bottom of.
Q108 Chairman: You have been accused
by the Shellfish Association of being heavy handed, grudging with
information, secretive and of a persistent reluctance to admit
that you might have been wrong. What is your assessment of the
way the Food Standards Agency has handled this issue?
Dr Bell: I am bound to say that
we have handled it in what I would consider to be the correct
manner, but I can understand the sensitivities attached to this.
I think we have a lot of sympathy for the position the shellfish
industry has found itself in. We have zoned the beds as far as
we were able to, to enable as much fishing as possible to continue.
Despite what you have heard today, I would argue that we have
had frequent and repeated conversations with all sides. We have
had many letters. We have written many explanatory letters back.
We have exposed all the work we have done. We have published the
results and we shall carry on doing that. Naturally, people see
it from different points of view. We see it very much from the
point of view that we do not feel we can ignore what could be
pointing to a new toxin. We do not know whether that is the case
yet. Others whose livelihoods are at stake here I quite understand
might think that that was being too precautionary and there will
be a difference of opinion on that but that does not mean to say
we cannot continue to talk together and try and work to a common
solution, I hope.
Q109 Chairman: Is not there an argument
here for rebuilding working relations with the industry and with
the local food authorities?
Dr Bell: Yes. I would certainly
hope things have not got to the point where we do not have a working
relationship. I have heard what is said today. I think we need
to redouble our efforts, I might say on both sides, to ensure
that we work together to get a solution as quickly as we can.
I can understand the frustration at the time this takes and we
are doing all we can to get things moving and make sure we get
to an end as quickly as we can. No purpose is served by being
at war. I hope that is not the position we are at. I do not recognise
that position and we would want to continue to talk and work with
all the parties that are involved in this.
Q110 Alan Simpson: Is not the logic of
what you are saying that, if we are to believe that the risk element
that you are concerned about justified the application of the
precautionary principle, should we not be saying as a government
that that has to apply to the importation of all mussels? If we
are talking about a common European position and the protection
of the public, when you buy stuff from the shops, you are not
saying, "I am buying this because it has come from the UK",
I suppose, or because it has come from Germany or the Netherlands.
You are buying the product. You are making a judgment that says,
"We do not believe it is safe to sell this product."
If that is so, surely in terms of protecting the public it is
not origin determined; it is determined on the basis of whether
precisely the same tests that you are insisting we go by as the
measurement of risk to public health are applied to every part
of that industry.
Dr Bell: Yes, that is absolutely
right. We are looking for a level playing field and quite rightly
so. A lot has been made of the fact that other European countries
use other variants of the test, the rat or whatever. We have written
to the Commission and we have had definitive advice from them.
We have also spoken to the Dutch and we know it is the case. You
can use other tests but you are required to demonstrate their
equivalence, which is very difficult. However, in the case of
doubt where you get a different answer with the mouse test to
the rat test, the mouse test is the definitive test. That has
clearly been laid down by the Commission to us in writing and
in other ways. What we are looking for is to move as quickly as
possible to more robust forms of test right across the Community.
This is what we shall be talking about within a week now, round
the table. We want to get chemical tests in where we can and we
want to be much clearer about what the standard operating procedure
ought to be across the whole of Europe, not just the one we might
operate or the one the French or the Dutch might operate. I think
that is the way we have to go. I do not think it is an ideal situation
but we have to operate within the framework that we have and we
have to move as quickly as possible to resolve these differences.
Q111 Alan Simpson: If we are going to
apply that principle and say that we are concerned about something
that we do not know, to a point at which we are prepared to ban
it, that has to apply to the importation of the same products
from different countries who do not use precisely the same testing
methodology that you use, because it would fail at that first
test. Do we know? The answer is no. I am pushing you on this because
we either have to have a position that is tenable across the food
sector or no position at all.
Dr Bell: I accept what you say.
I think there is a case for what you do about imports. There is
equally a case for what you do about your own production. We have
heard most of it is exported and it is an important industry,
which we accept. But we have to protect our own population. We
have to decide what we are doing about the results we are getting
from shellfish from our own waters. That is what we are doing,
but I agree with you that we need to make sure that, across the
Community, we are on a level playing field and that testing is
being done in a similar way to protect public health. I have no
evidence that the shellfish that are coming from outside the UK
waters have this problem. You can say that is because people have
not looked in the right way. You can make that argument certainly.
The rat test may not pick this up. We are not clear about that.
But it has the mouse test at the back of it. At the moment, I
am trying to work with the problem we have but not ignoring the
fact that we need to work in the Community to get everything properly
set up so that everybody gets the same answers across the Community.
Q112 Chairman: I have a couple of other
questions which relate to farm salmon, not part of our agenda,
but since you are the chief executive of the FSA and since it
is so topical I put them to you because I think they are important.
We may need to look at this as a Committee at some other stage
but since we can get some preliminary answers from you now I would
like to put these questions. It relates to the material published
in Science by researchers from Indiana. The FSA effectively
pooh-poohed them, emphasising the known benefits of eating oily
fish. I am a great advocate of everybody eating as much fish as
possible, particularly fish that is caught by the Grimsby fleet
which is not a very large quantity now. Should we continue to
eat farm salmon?
Dr Wadge: The evidence produced
on the levels of dioxins in salmon was nothing new. It matched
the types of levels that we reported ourselves a few years ago.
This was a much more extensive study and it looked at Pacific
salmon and compared them with the farmed salmon from Scotland.
It did not compare like with like. It did not compare farmed salmon
with Atlantic salmon. The big difference in this particular study
was the approach that the researchers used to assess the risks
to health. They took a model developed in 1991 published in draft
form, which incidentally has never been finalised by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, which assumes that whatever
exposure of dioxins someone receives there will be some level
of cancer risk. That is making an assumption that dioxins at whatever
level carry with them a risk of cancer. An awful lot of work has
been done on the toxicology of dioxins. It is probably one of
the most well studied environmental contaminants since 1991. The
World Health Organisation, the United States Food and Drug Administration,
our own Committee on Toxicity and the Scientific Committee for
Food which advises the European Commission have all looked at
this subsequently and have said that dioxins do not operate in
this manner. There is a threshold below which there is not thought
to be any harmful effect over a lifetime of exposure. We have
taken that more recent, what we consider to be more appropriate,
risk assessment that is widely accepted internationally by the
World Health Organisation and compared the sort of exposure that
you would get if you consumed salmon as part of your healthy,
balanced diet. We have said the levels are within those accepted
guideline values. Set against what is really a theoretical risk
are some very clear, known benefits of eating oily fish as part
of a healthy, balanced diet, such as protecting people from cardiovascular
disease, one of the biggest killers. That hopefully explains the
difference of approach that has been taken.
Q113 Chairman: How are the safety limits
for toxins and PCBs and dioxins determined for farm salmon? Who
fixed them and how do you enforce them? What are they?
Dr Wadge: There are independent,
expert committees that advise the World Health Organisation in
this case, which will look at the toxicity of a particular compound
such as dioxins and work out, not in relation specifically to
salmon, but how much a human being can ingest over a lifetime
without any adverse effects. Having established that guideline
value, you will then compare it with dietary intake information.
We carry out surveys of what food people consume and you look
at the total dietary intake, of which salmon will be one part,
and you compare that with the guidelines established by the independent
experts. That is the basis on which we are able to say that the
UK diet and the salmon intake do not present a risk from dioxins.
There are now quite tight controls on the levels of dioxins permitted
within the fish feed. Those are controlled at a European level.
Q114 Chairman: Does it accumulate in
salmon?
Dr Wadge: Dioxins do accumulate.
Dioxins are essentially there as a legacy of past industrial activity,
so they will accumulate in the environment, probably in the sediment,
and gradually accumulate in the food chain. The good news that
we have from our quite comprehensive dietary surveys shown that
the levels of intake that people are exposed to have dropped by
at least 50% in recent years. That reflects the controls on industrial
emissions.
Q115 Chairman: The limits used by the
FSA in determining the safety limits for toxins differ from those
in this study because you are saying yours are more up to date?
Dr Wadge: We have taken advice
from the World Health Organisation and our own Committee on Toxicity,
who have looked at the recent evidence on the toxicity of dioxins.
These researchers from the University of Illinois did not carry
out, as I understand it, their own risk assessment. They used
the USEPA model which assumed that, whatever exposure occurs,
there is some risk of cancer. We think that the new scientific
information on the toxicity of dioxins does not support that approach.
We think it is inappropriate.
Q116 Chairman: You do not see a need
for invoking the same precautionary principle that you invoked
for shellfish?
Dr Wadge: We would always take
a precautionary approach and we would look at the exposure against
the risk assessment carried out by independent scientists. In
this case, the big difference is we know what the toxin is. We
know what the effects are. We know what the levels are in food
and we know what the exposure is, so it is quite easy to make
that comparison. The shellfish situation is very different because
we simply do not know what is causing these atypical effects.
Q117 Mr Drew: I wonder how much resource
you are putting into studying some of the issues to do with fish.
Give us a feel for the sort of work comparison that it might be
possible to draw compared to meat, where we are, dare I say, hopefully
at the end of a lot of various scare stories and have done some
invaluable work, if nothing else, to be able to tell the rest
of the world how to try and avoid BSE and how not to do some of
the things that we got wrong. Could you give us a feel for the
research in this area? Are you under-powered in terms of being
able to pull together? As Austin said, we go into salmon; we have
looked at shellfish and some of the other problems which affect
this industry pretty drastically.
Dr Bell: I cannot give you a figure
off the top of my head that covers all the research spend on fish
per se. On shellfish we have spent around £300,000 on research
in the last couple of years, trying to get to the bottom of this
issue. We spend nearly £1 million a year on paying for the
testing and all the aspects that go with that. If you want to
compare it with what has been spent in the meat area in the last
few years, obviously there is little comparison there because,
we you well know, the expenditure on BSE has been simply huge
over that period of time. One might argue, I hope, that because
of that huge expenditure and what we have learned in the process
we can get a grip on things at rather less expense in the future.
A lot of the response to BSE was done with hindsight and maybe
more could have been done at the beginning. I do not know, but
there is not really a comparison in that way to be made. The sums
are quite different. If you are interested, I am certainly prepared
to look out the figures we are spending on fish across the board
and write you with some breakdowns on that.
Chairman: Can I thank both of you particularly
for your patience in dealing with these last, extra questions
and for your evidence. If you have anything which occurs to you
which you think would be helpful to us, please do not hesitate
to send it to us in writing as quickly as possible. I hope a bit
of marriage guidance can come out of it and Relate can bring the
parties in this dispute together, but we are dealing with the
story of the divorce and the acrimonious dispute when we write
the report. Thank you and thanks to the other parties for giving
evidence today.
| 
