OpenI.co.ukFactotum@openi.co.uk
Author's Comments
Caution: Be warned Opinion and Analysis like fresh fish and house guests begins to smell after a few days. Always take note of the date of any opinion or analysis. If you want an update on anything that has been be covered by the Open I, contact the author .
Opinion & Analysis: Opinion without analysis or reasoning and Analysis without opinion or conclusion are equally useless. So Opinion and Analysis are a continuum. Copy that puts emphasis on and quantifies reasoning is identified as Analysis. In the interest of readability the presentation of analytical elements may be abridged. If you require more than is presented, contact the author.
Retro Editing: It is my policy generally not to edit material after it has been published. What represents fair comment for the time will be kept, even if subsequent events change the situation. Understanding the wisdom of the time is of value. Struck-out text may be used to indicate changed situations. Contact the author for explanations.
The body of the text of anything that proves to be embarrassingly fallacious will be deleted, but the summary will be retained with comment as to why the deletion has occurred. This will act as a reminder to the author to be more careful.
Note to Editors: While the information on this website is copyrighted, you are welcome to use it as is provided that you quote the source. If copy is of interest to you, but you find it a little dated and/or not quite suitable for your readership and you wish to use it with revisions, contact the author. In most instances I should be able to revise it at short notice.
Contact:David Walker
Postwick, Norwich
NR13 5HD, England
phone: +44 1603 705 153
email: davidw@OpenI.co.uk top of page
Open-i.ca Home | Openi.co.uk Archive | Open-i.ca Recent Opinion | About the open i
BSE Inquiry Report Imminent
-Monday October 2, 2000
The findings of the 30-month, £27 million, BSE Inquiry are likely to be disappointing to those looking for retribution. (400 words)
The long awaited BSE(bovine spongiform encephalopathy), mad cow disease, Inquiry Report is now in the hands of the relevant Ministers of the British government and its release can be expected in a matter of days. [Post edit: The report was released on Ocotber 26, 2000.]
It is likely to be a disappointment to many who expect an ensuing "slaughter" in terms of loss of integrity resulting from apportionment of guilt to rival that of the BSE epidemic itself. While it is certainly likely to find faults in the manner in which the epidemic was handled, it is unlikely to lay significant blame on specific individuals with a high profile at the time.
The reality is that the terms of reference of the inquiry were narrower than many people believe. And it is likely to emerge that, while many of the players may have lacked foresight, they did not act inappropriately with the scientific information available to them.
This is likely to be viewed by many as an unsatisfactory conclusion for an inquiry that cost £27 million and took 30 months to undertake.
The terms of reference of the Inquiry,
'To establish and review the history of the emergence and identification of BSE and nvCJD in the United Kingdom, and of the action taken in response to it up to 20 March 1996; to reach conclusions on the adequacy of that response, taking into account the state of knowledge at the time..."
may in retrospect be regarded by many as overly restrictive. The clear emphasis on the chronology indicates that the challenge of "being wise after the event" was clearly identified from the outset.
There is likely to be criticism of the manner in which certain program elements were administered with regard to the industries performance in meeting the spirit, if not the letter of, of these programs. But on questions relating to major decision making, the issue is likely to be whether action resulted in timely manner and whether the information on which the decisions were based were communicated quickly enough.
The inquiry did not have the terms of reference to review the role played by the press and media, consumers, or the beef industry in this unfortunate episode. This is surely unfortunate as it infers that responsibility lies only with government alone. There may, however, be indirect criticism in the context of government failing to anticipate how parties it was dealing might have responded.
The British Food Safety Agency report on control measures, also expected soon, may have more surprises.
October 2, 2000
top of pageMaintained by: David Walker. Copyright © 2000. David Walker. Copyright & Disclaimer Information. Last Revised/Reviewed: 001002