Open I

Sir John Krebs' and the Food Standards Agencies(FSA) use of comparisons of recorded cases of BSE in France and the UK as a measure of the severity of the French epidemic is deceptive nonsense. It has all the appearance of desperation. (600 words)

Not only do the differences between BSE slaughter policies make such comparisons invalid but it is now known that much BSE in France goes unrecorded and undetected. More than two dozen sick cattle in France have over the last few months in essence been clinically mis-diagnosed as not having BSE,

A single undetected case should be of greater concern in a food safety context that any number of recorded cases. The FSA, an independent advisor to the British Government on a wide range food issues, might have been expected to take this on board.

The simple and unavoidable fact is that, if eating BSE beef causes vCJD, some French beef is dangerous. And whether there is cause and effect is immaterial, if most consumers believe that there is.

The conventional wisdom, however, is that as cattle do not develop BSE symptoms until they are more than thirty months of age, beef from animals under this age is safe. This is, of course, the basis for the British over 30-month scheme which effectively removes beef from all such animals from the food chain.

It is also the food safety line of defense against imported French beef. Any beef imported from France has to be from cattle under thirty months of age. And the FSA has a point in claiming that French beef is as safe as British beef, if this restriction is observed.

The challenge with this is that its enforcement is dependant on trust and the threat of prosecution if restricted beef is imported rather than any meaningful inspection. While this may be, in a practical and short term context, the best defense for the British beef supply short of an outright ban, it is not a very reassuring one for consumers.

And sooner or later somebody, somewhere will find over thirty-month French beef has been imported. The FSA must, therefore, be under considerable pressure to find a more meaningful way to protect the British beef supply.

While most of France's other neighbours have imposed bans on beef imports, the British government has bound itself to the advice of the FSA. The FSA in turn, in order to sustain its independence is obliged to be guided by objective scientific opinion.

In all likelihood the issue will be settled by the European Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee which has been asked by France to rule on the unilateral bans on French beef imports imposed by about half a dozen members states. Ironically it was this committee's unanimous opinion over the safety of British beef that the French chose to ignore when it maintained its illegal ban on British beef.

This committee may not be vindictive, but it is unlikely to give French beef a clean bill of health. If France is unable to diagnose accurately, or rather safely, fallen stock for BSE, it is difficult to imagine how they can convincingly argue that its beef is safe. It is, therefore, likely that a Europe-wide ban on French beef exports will be recommended by this committee.

Whether this will be viewed as a victory for the FSA - they did not have to recommend a British import ban on political grounds, or a defeat - they failed to recognized the danger of French beef will be a matter of unending debate.

November 27, 2000