Informal consultation on measures to prevent the diversion of unfit meat into the food chain

We are seeking your views on the action the Agency could take in the aftermath of the recent case of unfit poultry meat being diverted back into the human food chain. The trial in the "Rotherham" case resulted last December in convictions of the individuals accused. In another case, the co-ordinated operation on 22 March led by Derbyshire Constabulary, in which the Agency was involved, and where investigations are continuing, has led to the condemnation and recall of poultry and processed poultry products.

Placing unfit poultry meat into the food chain is a matter which the Agency takes very seriously, and we are therefore keen to ensure that consumers receive the appropriate level of protection against such criminal practices. While strict controls already exist for the production of meat, and for the disposal of animal by-products, a tightening of these may be necessary if they are not adequate to prevent such fraudulent activity happening again.

At the same time, the FSA is required to act in a manner proportionate to the risks involved and to take account of all relevant factors. We therefore seek your views both on what level of action might be proportionate to the risks, and on what the relevant factors might be. We want to obtain comments from all interested parties, including consumers, the industries involved, retailers and enforcement authorities.

The Animal By-Products Order 1999 (ABPO) is made under the Animal Health Act 1981 and controls animal by-products (carcases or parts of carcases, including blood), not intended for human consumption. It classifies animal by-products into:

"high risk" material, which must be incinerated or rendered; and

"low risk" material, which may be used for animal consumption by animals in zoos, circuses and hunt kennels and in pet food, for domestic animals. It is also used for pharmaceutical or technical purposes.

Exceptions to the provisions of the ABPO include Specified Risk Material, pet food from butchers and "catering waste"¹

The ABPO is enforced in premises licensed under the meat hygiene regulations² by the Meat Hygiene Service (acting on behalf of MAFF and not the Agency). Other premises handling by-products, such as by-products collection centres or pet food manufacturing premises, are approved or registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and visited by the State Veterinary Service, to check that the conditions for approval or registration are being met. Powers to revoke the approval or registration lie with MAFF, although the powers to prosecute for contravention of the ABPO rest with Local Authority Animal Health Officers.

The Animal By-Products (Identification) Regulations 1995, as amended, (ABPI), is made under the Food Safety Act 1990. They require the staining (using an indelible black or blue dye) or sterilisation of the equivalent of "high risk" material, from red meat animals, which is produced in licensed slaughterhouses, game processing facilities or animal by-products premises. The ABPI do not apply to "low risk" red meat by-products, or to any poultry by-products, and the staining requirements do not apply to licensed cutting plants or cold stores. The ABPI is enforced at licensed premises by the Meat Hygiene Service, and in other premises by the Local Food Authorities.

It has been suggested that one way to tackle the problem of unfit poultry meat entering the food chain would be to require the staining of unfit poultry meat by-products, as is already the case for "high risk" red meat by-products. The Agency would welcome your views on this generally, and, in particular, on the following options:

Option 1 - Stain "high risk" poultry by-products only

"High risk" poultry meat by-products would include:

• birds that were dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse;
• birds killed for reasons of disease control;
• carcasses rejected during ante or post-mortem inspection because they show signs of diseases communicable to humans or animals;
• carcasses slaughtered for human consumption, but not presented for post-mortem inspection; or
• carcases which are spoiled in any way so as to present a risk to human or animal health.

Option 2 - Stain both "high risk" and "low risk" poultry by-products

"Low risk" material is considered to be all other by-products outside the "high risk" category, for example, poultry meat which is bruised.

We have been advised by Rotherham Borough Council that the unfit meat involved in the case they investigated involved both "high" and "low risk" by-products.

Option 3: Stain "low risk" red meat by-products

This could be on the grounds that they too were unfit for human consumption and could be fraudulently diverted into the human food chain.

"Low risk" by-products are used in the manufacture of pet foods. This would seem to raise the following issues:

• Whether pet food containing stained meat would be acceptable to pet owners? If not, pet food manufacturers might switch to imports for their supplies. These supplies would not be required, under the ABPI, to be stained, but would that discriminate against British producers, or open up further risks?
• What additional costs might there be for white and red meat producers from the costs of staining, the potential loss of sales income from "low risk" material, and the costs of disposal?
• Confusion between the "high risk" and "low risk" materials if both were stained, leading to cross contamination by the former of the latter. This could cause further problems if any contaminated "low risk" material was used for pet food or other purposes;
• Practical difficulties in ensuring that all carcasses of unfit poultry meat were thoroughly stained; and
• Staining might not prevent future problems if the staining could be removed by removing the stained feathers and skin, and/or trimming the stained top surface, allowing the unfit meat below to be used fraudulently.

We would be grateful for views on these points and any other likely implications.

A further issue is the fact that the staining requirements of the ABPI only apply to licensed slaughterhouses, game processing facilities and animal by-product premises. The Agency would want to consider whether the requirement to stain should be extended to licensed cutting plants and cold stores (this would need to apply to both poultry meat and red meat cutting plants and cold stores to ensure there was a level playing field) and any other premises which produce animal by-products.

The second main issue to be considered is that of enforcement. This covers enforcement of the ABPI regulations, both current and if extended to include poultry by-products. It also covers the enforcement of the ABPO regulations. We should be grateful for your views on how satisfactory, or not, the current position is, and on what further action you might feel should be taken, and why, for each piece of legislation.

We seek your views on all of the points raised in this letter. But we seek views on the following specific questions:

• Would any of the options for staining poultry by-products provide the appropriate degree of consumer protection? If not, what other options or additional measures do you think would be appropriate?
• Would the measures be enforceable? Are the current requirements enforceable?
• What would be the implications of such measures for the white meat industry and for the red meat industry, for the pet food industry, and for the retail trade?
• What are the environmental implications of staining poultry by-products? For example, there would be a need to in dispose of "low risk" by-products which were no longer purchased by pet food manufacturers.

Once the Agency has considered the comments which we receive, we may wish to discuss options further with other interested government departments, and with stakeholder groups. If staining poultry by-products were to be proposed, there would have to be full public consultation on the specific proposals to amend the ABPI regulations, which would give a further opportunity for you to offer your comments.

As we are only seeking preliminary views to help inform policy options, comments should be sent to:

England
Sylvia Ankrah
Room 315C,
Food Standards Agency,
Aviation House, 125 Kingsway,
London WC2 6NH

Tel: 020 7276 8356
Email: sylvia.ankrah@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

Scotland
Jennifer Howie,
Food Standards Agency Scotland,
6th Floor, St Magnus House,
25 Guild Street, Aberdeen AB11 6NJ

Tel: 01224 285142
Email: jennifer.howie@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

At the end of this informal consultation process we intend to make copies of the comments received publicly available. If you would prefer your comments not to be made public, please indicate this clearly in your reply.

¹Includes waste from catering and domestic waste; waste from the production of products not intended for human consumption without further cooking;or waste from the production of bread, cakes etc.

²The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and inspection) Regulations 1995, the Poultry Meat etc (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, the Wild Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, the Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994, and the Minced Meat and Meat Preparations (Hygiene) Regulations 1995.

Following this consultation, the Food standards Agency will be carrying out a second consultation on specific legislative proposals to amend the Animal By-Products (Identification) Regulations 1995 to:

• require the staining of "high risk" poultry by-products; and
• extend the scope of the Animal By-Products (Identification) Regulations 1995 to licensed cutting plants and cold stores.

When available, details of the second consultation will be placed on this website.

This consultation has been prepared in accordance with the HM Government Code of Practice on Consultation, which states that a consultation must follow better regulation best practice, including carrying out an Impact Assessment (Regulatory Impact Assessment in Scotland). The assessment is included in the consultation documents.

We are interested in what you thought of this consultation and would therefore welcome your general feedback on both the consultation package and overall consultation process. If you would like to assist us to improve the quality of future consultations, please feel free to share your thoughts with us by using the consultation feedback questionnaire.

Consultation feedback questionnaire (Word)

Consultation feedback questionnaire (pdf)

Within three months of a consultation ending we aim to publish a summary of responses received and provide a link to it from this page.

If, after three months, the summary is still not showing, please contact the person who was responsible for the original consultation. Alternatively, you can contact the FSA Consultation Co-ordinator by email: consultationcoordinator@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk