1. The Regulations would amend, in respect of Scotland, the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997 No. 2959) to:
2. Advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) and the former Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, led to the Government introducing controls on the sale, use and disposal of beef bones, including the retail ban on bone-in beef, on 16 December 1997. This followed the finding that BSE infectivity had been found in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG), and possibly bone marrow, of cattle infected experimentally with BSE.
3. The risk to public health from BSE infectivity has been kept under review. It was reviewed most recently by the Scottish Executive’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Sir David Carter and his colleagues in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Their analysis, which takes account of current trends in BSE and other relevant factors is that the beef on the bone as it applies to retail sales can now be lifted, whilst allowing consumer choice the CMOs further advice that in light of the continuing uncertainty about the infectivity of bone marrow, the ban on the use of bones for manufactured and processed products should be retained.
4. The Scottish Executive’s objective continues to be to protect public health and to maintain confidence in beef and beef products.
5. Four options have been identified:
Option c is proposed for the reasons described below.
6. Option (a) would continue to protect public health to the maximum possible extent from a very small, and significantly diminished risk but would continue to restrict consumer and business choice. There would still be a need to delete the requirement for the disposal of bones and for record keeping as the Animal By-Products Order 1999, (S.I. 1999/646) which came into force on 1 April 1999, now applies.
7. Option b. Would implement the joint advice of all the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) by allowing the retail sale of bone-in beef, and beef bones for human consumption. This would allow consumers to choose whether to accept the very small risk of contracting vCJD through consuming BSE infected material associated with beef bones. It would increase confidence in beef and thus would benefit the beef industry. It would enable butchers and restaurateurs to benefit their business by supplying bone-in beef and would relieve food authorities of an enforcement task. Overall, the financial effect would be minor but could be significant for some businesses.
8. Retention of the ban on the use of bones for manufacturing food products, including infant foods, (except for beef bones imported as such) would take account of the possibility that bone marrow might be infective. It would protect consumers who might wish to avoid any risk associated with beef bone from being supplied with it in circumstances where they could not make a fully informed personal choice. It would thus help maintain confidence in beef products.
9. Option (c) Has a similar effect to option b. However it would, in addition, allow consumers to buy beef which had been cooked on the bone and food made using beef bones in circumstances where they would be able to make an informed choice (e.g. by asking in restaurants if the beef had been cooked on the bone or if the gravy had been made using beef bones). This option provides consumers with the maximum freedom of choice in circumstance where they are able to make an informed choice.
10. Option (d) Goes beyond the advice of the CMOs. It would enable manufacturers to use domestically produced beef bones in the production of food and ingredients but a requirement to label would be onerous and difficult to enforce. Manufacturers and traders would need to be able to check whether ingredients and/or foods had been made using home-produced beef bones, as would the enforcement authorities. Labelling costs would increase. Consumers would be unable to tell whether a food without a beef bone statement on the label did not need one or if that statement was missing by default. This would be confusing and be likely to damage confidence in all foods which might have included beef bones in their manufacture.
Compliance costs for business
11. The proposal has the potential to affect all wholesale and retail butchers and all restaurants and caterers which prepare food on the premises for direct sale or supply. No compliance costs have been identified.
Other costs
12. The costs of food authorities would be slightly reduced as only the ban on the use of bone-in beef and of beef bones from beef deboned in Great Britain would need to be enforced.
Summary and recommendations/ conclusions
13. Option (c) provides consumers with the maximum freedom of choice in circumstance where they are able to make an informed choice. It retains the ban on the use of bone-in beef and of beef bones for manufacturing food products (including infant foods) which takes account of the possibility that bone marrow might be infective (though this is by no means certain) It will protect consumers who might wish to avoid any risk associated with beef bone from being supplied with it in circumstances where they could not make a fully informed personal choice. In view of these benefits, and in the light of the difficulties which would arise from labelling and through the need to notify the EU if option (d) were implemented, option (c) is recommended.
14. The Regulations are enforced by the Scottish Ministers in premises in Scotland licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 and in any other premises by the food authority in whose area the premises are situated.
Enquiries should be made to Mr Martin Morgan
(telephone 0131 244 6412 fax 031 244 4755)
SERAD November 1999
The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.
For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.