Animal feed firms deny causing BSE

ANIMAL feed manufacturers yesterday denied responsibility for the BSE epidemic, and claimed that their reluctance to tell farmers that they were turning cattle into cannibals was necessary for commercial success.

In evidence to the BSE inquiry in London, representatives of animal feed mills asserted that the idea that infected cattle feed caused bovine spongiform encepalopathy (BSE) is still formally untested.


"It's a hypothesis, and we would certainly like to know what the real reason is," said Peter Sanderson, quality assurance manager for the feed makers BOCOM Pauls. Jim Reed, director-general of the UK Agricultural Supply Trade Association, which includes about 100 feed makers, said: "We would like to be certain, rather than working - like everybody else - on theories." Under questioning, the feed company representatives painted a picture in which the post-war dairy farming community engaged in a "dash for growth", trying to produce more milk from faster-maturing cattle: between 1973 and 1983, average cow milk yields increased by 25 per cent. This followed the use of high-protein supplements including "meat and bone meal" (MBM) made by rendering companies from leftover parts, such as the head and bones, taken from abattoirs. The parts were heated under pressure to remove moisture and fat, leaving solids - MBM - which could have come from cattle or sheep. MBM has been used in animal feed for 90 years, feed companies said, without any ill-effects - until the advent of BSE. Helen Raine, of J Bibby Agriculture, said that though tests for pathogens were carried out on supply samples, "it's always the case that you don't test for things that you're not aware of." There is still no simple test for BSE infectivity in any material. The idea that BSE was spread by infected animal feed emerged from government scientists' early studies of the epidemic - and is strengthened by the fact that regulations introduced in 1989, banning the use of highly infective tissues such as brain and spinal cord to make cattle feed, has virtually ended the epidemic. The National Farmers' Union challenged the feed manufacturers, in written evidence from Ben Gill, the NFU president. He said that members had wanted more information about what they were feeding their cattle. "The NFU does not accept the arguments of difficulty in providing precise lists of ingredients," said Mr Gill. "Farmers did not accept that a simple declaration of the material ingredients would expose the (feed manufacturer) to risk of their formulations being `stolen' by their competitors." But Mr Reed said it was not feasible to provide labels detailing exact proportions of MBM and other ingredients, because their computer technology only improved that far in the early 1990s - just in time for a 1992 EU directive making labelling obligatory. Feed companies could not have distinguished whether MBM came originally from cows or sheep, since both passed through the rendering process and were delivered as "MBM". Companies also kept trying different compositions of feed to try to create food that would make cows gain weight faster. Mr Reed added: "Small feed companies were always in a competitive market. The NFU might dismiss that as irrelevant in the long term. But to a company that thought one ingredient or another might give it a commercial edge, it was very important at the time."

by Charles Arthur Science
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980428/ai_n14159749