1. The current UK legislation governing the removal and safe disposal of specified risk material (SRM) from the carcases of animals processed for food in the UK and the SRM controls on imports to the UK was introduced on 1 January 1998. The food safety controls are contained in the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 and the import controls in the Specified Risk Material Order 1997.

2. Controls on SRM at EU level have been adopted under Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000. That Decision included three separate measures with different implementation dates, the first two of which have already been implemented in UK law. The third element of the Decision - the introduction of EU SRM controls on imports into the EU from third countries – must now be implemented. In addition, Decision 2000/418 has been further amended by Decision 2001/233/EC of 14 March 2001, which extends, with certain exemptions, the EU definition of SRM to include vertebral column of bovines aged over 12 months and adds further restrictions on MRM production.

3. The objective of the proposals to which this Regulatory Impact Assessment refers is, therefore, to revise the current national SRM legislation to meet the requirements of the Commission Decisions in relation to England. In summary the changes will -

4. These measures are based on risk assessments by the EU Scientific Steering Committee (SSC).

1. Application of EU SRM controls on imports from third countries

The SSC has been carrying out assessments of the BSE risk status of third countries which wish to export meat or products of animal origin to the EU. So far it has placed 14 third countries in the lowest of the four categories in its risk classification scheme, denoting that the presence of BSE in the countries concerned is highly unlikely. The Commission is currently proceeding on the basis that only third countries in the lowest BSE risk category may benefit from the exemption from SRM import controls.

2. Extension of the EU SRM definition to include vertebral column of bovines aged over 12 months

The SSC has considered the risks from consumption of meat attached to vertebral column and concluded that the vertebral column of cattle aged over 12 months should be regarded as SRM ‘whenever it cannot be demonstrated that the animal is highly unlikely to be incubating BSE’. The Commission Decision adopted in the light of the SSC’s opinion therefore extends the EU definition of SRM (applicable to all EU countries and exports from non-exempt third countries) to include the vertebral column of such cattle, but provides for exceptions to be made in respect of vertebral column from cattle either

2. in other member states, born after the date of effective enforcement of a feed ban.

The Decision also provides that the UK, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Austria may benefit from such a derogation.

The SSC has also stated that production of MRM from bones of young (under 12 months) ruminants or from bones, other than vertebral column or skull (which are already banned), of older animals should not pose a significant risk. However, it raised a concern about whether the necessary precaution of excluding the vertebral column of older animals could in practice be applied. The purpose of extending the list of bones banned for MRM production to all ruminant bones is therefore to enable better enforcement of the current prohibitions.

5. On the basis of these assessments, there should be no increased risk to consumers associated with the revised controls on imports from third countries. The extension of the SRM list to include bovine vertebral column should provide an additional assurance of the safety of imported carcase meat, particularly from older cattle from certain EU countries, although in principle the application of the Over Thirty Months Rule to imports should provide adequate consumer protection. The measure concerning MRM should completely eliminate any risk from this source, as it should remove any possibility that ruminant vertebral column could be included, even inadvertently, in bones from which MRM is produced.

Options

6. The UK is under a legal obligation to implement the above measures in the UK and indeed supports EU-wide controls on SRM as the most effective way of providing consumers with the highest possible level of protection from exposure to BSE infectivity.

7. The EU legislation provides little scope for national discretion in the way it is implemented in national law. There is however scope for choice in relation to arrangements for controlling removal of vertebral bone from carcase meat, as the Decision allows the bone to be removed either at cutting plants or at the point of sale to the consumer. As a result of the UK derogation, there is no requirement to treat the vertebral column of domestically -produced animals aged under 30 months as SRM. However, trade in carcases containing vertebral column where this is SRM will still be permitted. This means that a mechanism must be established to ensure that vertebral column is removed from such imported carcases before the meat reaches the consumer.

8. The following options to achieve this have been identified;

9. ;No issues of equity or fairness have been identified.

Imports From Third Countries

10. The current controls prevent the import of meat and meat products from any third country unless accompanied by a veterinary certificate declaring that the product either contains no SRM, or is derived from an animal which was born, continuously reared and slaughtered in Australia or New Zealand.

11. The Decision will essentially retain these controls, but allows imports into the Community from an extended list of exempt countries without the need for any tissues to be removed. The SSC risk assessment provides assurance that imported meat from these exempted countries is of low BSE risk. There is a possible benefit here for producers of certain products (e.g. haggis) which include material normally classed as SRM, as it will provide a wider range of possible sources of such material.

12. There are also the potential consumer-safety benefits noted in paragraph 5.

Extension of Controls on Bovine Vertebral Column

13. The benefits of the options identified for controlling the removal of vertebral column from imported meat are as follows:-

Option i) removal only at designated cutting premises

The benefit of this option is that, as for all other SRM, it would enable the removal of vertebral column to be done under the direct supervision of the MHS. This would ensure that the obligation placed on the UK Government by the EU legislation to ensure that SRM is removed and destroyed is properly discharged and that public health is fully protected.

The benefit of this option is that it would allow operators other than licensed cutting operations direct access to imports of bone-in beef, while maintaining a greater level of control than would be provided by option iii).

This is the most deregulatory option. It would allow the widest access to imported bone-in beef and apply the lightest level of official control.

1. This measure is intended to have the benefits for improved control and consumer safety noted in paragraph 5.

Compliance costs for business

(a) Affected business sectors

15. The proposed measures would affect:

• licensed cutting plants;
• producers of mechanically-recovered meat;
• meat importers;
• meat processors;
• retail butchers;
• caterers.

Imports From Third Countries

16. As the proposal is in effect deregulatory, the Agency does not consider it likely to give rise to any additional cost to UK industry. (If this is not the case then we would be grateful to hear from consultees what the additional costs might be)

Extension of Controls on Bovine Vertebral Column

17. The requirement to remove vertebral column from imported carcases and dispose of it as SRM will involve some additional disposal costs, as the cost of disposing of the vertebral bone as SRM is approximately £15 per tonne more than disposing of it as an animal by-product. These additional costs are an inevitable consequence of designating vertebral column of imported meat as SRM, but where they fall will depend on which option for controlling the removal of this material is adopted. ( We would be grateful for information on how much additional cost may be involved here, i.e. how much additional SRM material may have to be disposed of by a typical business, and whether there may be any other additional costs, e.g. additional deboning costs or any economic impact from having to sell all meat from imported carcases in boneless form.)

18. The Decision also prohibits trade in meat (other than carcases, which we are proposing to define as half, quarter and one third of half carcases) containing vertebral bone. As a result, the import of bone-in cuts of meat, e.g. T-bone steaks, from countries without a derogation will be prohibited. (We would be grateful for information on whether there is a significant trade in these cuts at present and whether the prohibition of this trade will give rise to any costs.)

19. In addition to the additional SRM disposal costs above, the further costs associated with each of the options identified are as follows:-

Option i) removal only at designated cutting premises

The need for cutting plants to apply for designation would involve some minor additional administrative expense for businesses, as would the proposed requirement to provide three days’ notice of an intention to import bone-in meat. Additional costs to the MHS are also likely, as there would be a requirement to consider whether cutting premises applying for designation meet the relevant requirements. A greater MHS presence at designated cutting plants to supervise the removal of vertebral column would probably also be needed. However, under current government policy, any additional MHS costs would be funded by the Agency. A commitment has been made to meet these costs until at least March 2004;

This option would involve the additional administrative expense for both cutting plants and points of sale involved in obtaining designation. There would also be additional MHS costs, as for option i) above, in relation to applications for designation and supervision of removal of vertebral column in any cutting plants which obtain designation. There would similarly be increased costs for local authorities (which enforce the SRM rules in unlicensed premises) in relation to designation of premises and possibly additional enforcement, depending on how far checks on any designated premises are increased in order to monitor compliance with the deboning requirement.

This option would be unlikely to give rise to any significant additional costs. There would be none of the costs involved in designation. Additional enforcement costs would also be unlikely, as the prior indication of where or when imported meat containing vertebral column might arrive needed for effective enforcement would not be provided.

Extension of Controls on Use of Mechanically Recovered Meat

20. The current prohibition on the use of ruminant head and vertebral column bones in MRM production will be extended to cover all ruminant bones. This change will have a minimal practical effect in the UK. The use of UK beef bones in any food manufacture, including MRM, continues to be banned under the remaining beef bones controls. There is a gap in the current controls in relation to bones other than skull and vertebrae of sheep and goats but in practice very little MRM is now produced in UK from ruminant material (2 producers are known producing small quantities).

21. The EU ban refers simply to ‘the recovery of meat by mechanical means’. No definition of ‘mechanical means’ is given. For the purpose of this ban, our proposal would define of MRM as any product which comes from the residual meat on bones and has been obtained by mechanical means. Our intention is to prevent the use of bones which are the product of standard de-boning processes in MRM production. The proposal should not affect the production of oxtail, as the meat attached to the tail would not be considered to be ‘residual meat’.

    (The Agency would be grateful for any comments or information on the impact this legislation will have on the remaining ruminant MRM producers.)

22. We are unaware if any of the proposed measures will impact particularly on smaller businesses. (The Agency seeks the views of smaller businesses who believe they will be affected)

Results of the Consultation

23. All representative interested organisations have been consulted on the Government’s proposals. Copies of consultee's comments can be obtained from the Food Standards Agency. [additional comments to be added as appropriate once the consultation is completed]

Summary and recommendations/conclusions

24. The Government’s view is that the SRM controls provide a vital safeguard to public health against the risks of BSE. The Government’s policy is to ensure that all SRM is removed under official control at the earliest possible point in the processing chain, i.e. in the abattoir or cutting plant. Removal at point of sale (e.g. butchers’ shops or catering establishments) , as would be permitted by the EU legislation in the case of vertebral column, is considered impractical as it would require all premises selling meat to the consumer to make provision for removing the vertebral column where this is SRM, keeping it separate from all other animal material, staining it with the required blue dye and disposing of it according to the SRM rules. Rigorous control of the removal of SRM would be impracticable under such circumstances, as removal of SRM could not be supervised in all premises at which imported meat containing vertebral bone might be sold. There would also be a much greater opportunity for imported meat to have lost its identity by that stage, giving rise to the possibility of confusion among both retailers and consumers as to whether bones in meat were SRM. For these reasons, our proposal is that imports of carcase meat containing vertebral column which is SRM should be allowed only when transported directly to cutting premises designated to receive them, and where prior notice of the shipment has been given.

[To be finalised after consultation has taken place]

25. In premises licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulation, 1995, enforcement will be carried out by the Meat Hygiene Service. In relation to any other premises, enforcement is the responsibility of the local authority in whose area the premises are situated. Penalties for non-compliance are set out in the Food Safety Act 1990.

26. The Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 have been kept under review since their introduction. It has become apparent that some revisions and clarifications are necessary and that, at the same time, the statutory instrument could usefully be consolidated. These revisions will be prepared for consultation later in the year. The objective of the revision will be to replace the 1997 Regulations, consolidate the existing SRM rules, and to incorporate changes to improve their operation.

Contact point