06 Mar 97 - Meat industry hygiene report was suppressed
07 Mar 97 - Poor hygiene led to contamination of animal carcasses
07 Mar 97 - Children sue ministers over E coli
07 Mar 97 - Food hygeine: Hogg attacked over abattoir report
06 Mar 97 - Food standards: 'Suppression' claim on abattoir report
07 Mar 97 - He watered-down report that no-one remembers seeing
07 Mar 97 - Hygiene fears threaten abattoirs with ruin
07 Mar 97 - How the wording changed
06 Mar 97 - E coli warning 'was covered up'
07 Mar 97 - Ministers in clash over abattoir safety fiasco
07 Mar 97 - Industry's dirty secret sanitised by official report
Meat industry hygiene report was suppressed
by Polly Newton Political ReporterTimes ... March 06 1997
An unpublished report on the meat industry raised fears more than a year ago that poor hygiene was putting the public at increasing risk of infection from E. coli , the bacterium which recently claimed 20 lives in Scotland.
The report was commissioned by the Meat Hygiene Service, an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and was intended for publication last March. But it was suppressed after the authors refused to tone down criticisms in the draft version. The BSE crisis broke that month and yesterday the report's editor Bill Swann said: "The reasons given were that it was perhaps not good timing, given that the industry had received such a battering with criticism about BSE." Mr Swann, a former Official Veterinary Surgeon, added that had the report's recommendations been implemented, the risk from E. coli would have been much reduced.
Last night Labour accused Douglas Hogg, the Agriculture Minister, of being behind the decision to shelve the report, although officials said that it had not been presented to ministers.
The £1 million report was compiled by the Hygiene Advice Team, whose six members were contracted to the Meat Hygiene Service for 12 months from March 1995 to audit Britain's meat industry.
The team visited every one of the 450 abattoirs in England, Scotland and Wales, before compiling a 54-page report a copy of which has been obtained by The Times. They found that abattoirs were accepting for slaughter animals whose hides or fleeces were contaminated with faeces and said: "Organisms, such as Escherichia coli 157 and Salmonella, can be introduced into the plant on the skins of dirty livestock." It recommended a national policy to define "unacceptable contamination" of animals destined for slaughter.
And it said that, instead of trying to wash away traces of contamination on carcasses which spreads bacteria abattoir workers should trim off obviously dirty parts of the animal. However, the process is labour-intensive, and would not be popular in an industry with tiny profit margins.
Mr Swann said yesterday: "If the recommendations in the report were being implemented uniformly and fully across the country, the risk from E coli 157 would be considerably diminished."
There was considerable anger among the Hygiene Advice Team when the Meat Hygiene Service refused to publish the report. They claimed that service had wanted to do so, but had been overruled by the Chief Veterinary Officer.
Mr Swann, who is now an assistant chief veterinary officer for the RSPCA, said: "I felt the report would have been of enormous benefit to veterinary surgeons involved in meat work and to people involved in food hygiene. The recommendations were obviously very important." A ministry spokesman said that the report had been circulated within the industry, but no minister had seen it.
Although the report's authors accept that their findings were sent to individual abattoirs, they argued that only a national code of practice would stop abattoirs from taking in dirty stock. They said that intense competition meant that few abattoirs would turn away animals if they believed that another firm would accept them.
Nigel Griffiths, Labour's consumer affairs spokesman, said: "Every other line is damning. If action had been taken on this report, if it had not been suppressed, there is a high possibility that lives might have been saved. They must now immediately publish this report. They must explain to the public why they suppressed it and why they haven't implemented all the findings. Why on earth were things allowed to deteriorate this far, and why were they apparently covered up?"
07 Mar 97 - Poor hygiene led to contamination of animal carcasses
by Polly Newton, Political ReporterTimes ... 7 Mar 97
The unpublished report into Britain's meat industry, commissioned by an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and then suppressed, paints a damning picture. At almost every stage, from before slaughter to the dispatch of meat and carcasses from processing plants, the inspectors appointed by the Meat Hygiene Service found evidence of routine unhygienic practices.
Dirty knives were put into holders that were supposed to be sterile and clean knives into dirty holders. Workers failed to wash their hands frequently enough and often did not change their overalls during the day "despite gross contamination".
In a number of plants, some of the carcasses awaiting dispatch were contaminated with specified bovine offal, the parts that potentially harbour the BSE agent and are supposed to be removed before the carcass is sent out.
One common problem was the stringing up of carcasses on rails which moved along more quickly than workers could deal with them, leading to bunching.
The report, edited by Bill Swann of the Hygiene Advisory Team, says: "Blood, faeces and urine contaminate the fleece or hides of adjacent carcasses, making hygienic skinning more difficult. When cattle forefeet are removed on the bleeding rail, the exposed joint surface is vulnerable to contamination from hides of adjacent carcasses."
It says that the process of cutting into legs presented particular problems. "Hide opening cuts were made from foot to hock, cutting inwards and transferring dirt to the carcass. Dirty knives were used to flay hide and swapping of hands, from holding hide to touching exposed carcass, without a hand wash, were frequent observations. Poor access to sinks and sterilisers was common."
The report says that in chilling and freezing areas, contamination was evident on some carcasses in most abattoirs. "Contamination with stomach or intestinal contents and faecal contamination from poor dressing practices, were observed.
"Faecal pellets and rectal tissue in sheep, hair and singeing residue in pigs (from the process used to remove hair on pig carcasses) and bile staining were also noted." The auditors also inspected conditions in areas where meat and offal were packaged. They commented: "The hygiene handling of wrapping and packaging materials for offals was generally poor... Hand washing practices were poor in this area."
Meat to be sent out from plants was often held in areas without temperature controls. "Loading bays were frequently not refrigerated and meat was allowed to remain in these areas for long periods, with resulting elevation of carcass or offal temperature."
Containers holding the meat were often of an inappropriate size or shape and marked with bloody fingerprints, boot prints or oil marks and blood leakages from ruptured vacuum packages.
In areas where carcasses were cut, the inspectors found meat contaminated with faeces, nail and hair debris, bone dust, oil, grease and dust.
In smaller plants, it was not uncommon to find dogs and cats wandering around in ancillary areas, the report says. In some cases they were encouraged by food put down for them by abattoir workers. "This practice is not desirable," it says.
07 Mar 97 - Children sue ministers over E coli
by Polly Newton, Political ReporterTimes ... 7 Mar 97
Seven children who were struck down by E. coli infection last year have been granted legal aid to sue the Government for failing to minimise public risk from the bacteria.
Their lawyers argue that ministers at the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must have known of the increasing threat posed by E. coli but did not take adequate steps to improve meat hygiene or food labelling.
Between ten and 15 more cases are being submitted to the Legal Aid Board for consideration over the next week by the solicitors acting for the group, Howe and Co, of London. Lucy Kennedy, of Howe, said yesterday that they would be seeking £10,000 for the pain and suffering, with the possibility of a further claim in the future for any child who fell ill again as a result of being infected with E. coli.
The bacteria can cause long-term damage to the kidneys, and Ms Kennedy said a kidney transplant for any of the children would prompt a claim for between £80,000 and £100,000. "These children will not be able to get medical insurance now. These parents are being told there is a good chance their child will require aggressive medical treatment, or they might need to have private medical care overseas, and they cannot get insurance.
"They are absolutely frantic about it. They cannot do anything to protect themselves."
Among the children who have been granted legal aid to sue are Katie Thomas, 7, and her sister Rachel, 4, who became seriously ill after being infected with E. coli last September. Rachel spent nearly two weeks in Alderhey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, where she was on kidney dialysis and underwent two blood transfusions. Katie spent ten days there.
Their parents, Gary Thomas, 43, a Customs and Excise officer, and his wife, Chris, believe Katie contracted the infection from a McDonald's hamburger and then passed it on to Rachel. One of the other cases granted legal aid, involving a girl from Newcastle upon Tyne, is also alleged to stem from a McDonald's burger. McDonald's will be named in the action.
The other legal aid cases involve two children from each of two families who held barbecues in Stoke-on-Trent last summer.
07 Mar 97 - Food hygeine: Hogg attacked over abattoir report
By George Parker, Political CorrespondentFinancial Times ... Friday March 7 1997
Mr Douglas Hogg, agriculture minister, Thursday faced a barrage of criticism over his handling of a damaging report on abattoir safety, in spite of his insistence that the government did not suppress it.
The European Commission demanded an immediate copy of the exhaustive 1995 audit of UK slaughterhouses, which revealed that measures to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy - "mad cow disease" - and the deadly E. coli organism were being widely flouted.
Sir Hugh Pennington, the microbiologist appointed by the government to investigate the E. coli outbreak in Scotland, expressed his anger that he was not informed of the report.
Mr Hogg defended his position in the House of Commons, claiming the report by a team of veterinary inspectors, who went to each of Britain's 450 abattoirs, was always intended to be an internal working document. He claimed that ministers never saw the report, compiled by the Meat Hygiene Service - an agency of the agriculture ministry - even though it was the most exhaustive survey ever compiled on slaughterhouse standards.
Mr Tony Blair, leader of the opposition Labour party, said the episode demonstrated endemic secrecy in the government and an unseemly willingness of ministers to hide behind their officials.
"When will someone in this government take responsibility for the proper and competent administration of our affairs?" he asked in the House of Commons.
Mr Blair will today promise in a speech to a party conference in Scotland that Labour will set up an independent food safety agency if it wins the general election, expected on May 1. It would take on responsibilities from various government departments and produce an annual report to parliament.
Mr Hogg made clear yesterday that his ministry's first priority was to raise abattoir standards without necessarily revealing when severe lapses were detected.
The MHS report, edited by Mr Bill Swann, said in December 1995 that poor hygiene standards in abattoirs were providing a breeding ground for E. coli - which has killed 20 people in Scotland in four months.
Mr Hogg told the Commons the report was "rather unsatisfactory" and that Mr Swann refused requests from his colleagues to rewrite it. Eight months later the 54-page report was condensed by the MHS into an 11-page summary on the red meat industry, with most of Mr Swann's original recommendations and graphic accounts deleted.
The report was circulated to the National Farmers Union and the meat industry, but its existence remained unknown to the public until it was disclosed in the Financial Times yesterday.
06 Mar 97 - Food standards: 'Suppression' claim on abattoir report
By George Parker, Political CorrespondentFinancial Times ... Thursday March 6 1997
The Ministry of Agriculture was last night accused of suppressing a highly sensitive report by its own hygiene inspectors which revealed how abattoirs had become breeding grounds for the deadly e-coli organism.
The report exposes chronic lapses of hygiene in some abattoirs and warns of "major contamination" of carcases by animal faeces, which harbour the bacteria. Labour called for a Commons statement on the issue from Mr Douglas Hogg, agriculture minister, who has already faced cross-party criticism over his handling of the BSE crisis.
Members of the government inspection team, which visited every abattoir in Britain, claim they were told by Ministry of Agriculture officials to water down their report because of the damage it would do to the meat industry.
When they refused, a decision was taken not to publish. The report was due to be made public in March 1996, the same month that ministers first admitted the possible link between BSE - mad cow disease - and Creuzfeld-Jacob disease, its human equivalent.
Mr Bill Swann, the editor of the report, said: "If the recommendations in the report were being implemented uniformly and fully across the country, the risk from e-coli 0157 would be considerably diminished. "I felt the report would have been of enormous benefit if it had been published."
The Ministry of Agriculture said last night the report was an internal document prepared for one of its agencies, the Meat Hygiene Service. A spokesman insisted ministers had not seen the report at any stage even though it is thought to have cost more than £1m to prepare.
He said a copy was sent to every abattoir in June 1996, but admitted there was no formal publication. "Members of the public can have a copy if they ring the Meat Hygiene Service," he said.
Mr Nigel Griffiths, Labour's consumer affairs spokesman, called for a Commons statement. He said: "Every other line is damning. It seems inconceivable that Mr Hogg did not see this report at a time when concern over BSE was at its height. "If this report had not been suppressed, there is a high possibility that lives may have been saved."
Mr Swann, a veterinary surgeon, was employed in 1995 by the Meat Hygiene Service to lead a full audit of the British meat industry.
His team found that the vast majority of plants did not mark waste baskets or bins with the words "unfit for human consumption". But the inspection findings on e-coli were equally alarming, with evidence of faeces contaminating meat for human consumption in some plants. The report warned abattoirs were being contaminated by the admission of filthy animals and called for a national policy on the problem. Recent food poisoning incidents in Scotland caused by the e-coli bacteria have claimed 20 lives.
He watered-down report that no-one remembers seeing
David GravesTelegraph ... Friday 7 March 1997
David Graves traces the origins of the elusive report and tensions behind its drafting
Bill Swann first became aware of the Meat Hygiene Service's intended review of abattoir hygiene practice and animal welfare standards when he saw an advertisement for inspectors in the Veterinary Record in early 1995.
The review was due to start in April of that year to coincide with the launch of the MHS as the new national meat hygiene standards agency and Mr Swann, an experienced veterinary surgeon, was appointed a regional inspector on a 12-month contract. He was told that the intention was to publish the results of the review with the first MHS annual report on March 31 last year, when the Government was susbequently engulfed in the BSE crisis.
Mr Swann, who had sold his veterinary hospital in Derbyshire, had previously been working for the Isle of Man government. In all, 12 two-man teams, each comprising a vet and a meat inspector, were appointed by the MHS to visit abattoirs in England, Wales and Scotland. Some of the unannounced visits took place as early as 4.30am and Mr Swann claimed teams were soon recording chronic lapses of hygiene.
The inspections were completed earlier than had been anticipated and by December 1995 the six full-time inspectors compiled a draft report of their conclusions, which was edited by Mr Swann. The 54-page draft was handed personally by Mr Swann to Peter Soul, then acting head of operations for the MHS, at the agency's head office in York.
The draft was circulated for review within the Ministry of Agriculture, which was normal procedure. Mr Swann said yesterday he did not know who read it, although he assumed it would have been circulated within the ministry's veterinary section.
The ministry said it believed it was not seen by Keith Meldrum, the chief veterinary officer, because it was regarded as a working document. "It was certainly not seen by a minister," said a spokesman.
When Mr Swann met Mr Soul the following month to discuss the draft he was surprised by the MHS official's response. "Peter said it was quite a critical report when one of the objectives had been to provide recommendations and give advice. We were asked to look at it again to give it a more positive emphasis," he said.
"We did, but in truth there was very little we could alter. We took out the odd adjective but we could not change the general thrust of the report. It would have damaged our professional integrity to have done so."
The draft report was resubmitted to Mr Soul at the end of January last year. Mr Swann claimed he was told by the acting head of operations that the report "could not be published in the form it had been submitted". He said he did not know what had happened to the report, although it was not published as planned last March. Mr Soul's office yesterday referred calls to the ministry.
In his statement to the Commons, Douglas Hogg, the Agriculture Minister, said Mr Swann's first draft of the report had been regarded as "rather unsatisfactory and not fully reflecting the views of others who had taken part in the review".
The minister said Mr Swann had been asked to "recast his contribution" but had been unwilling to do so and a section on red meat was redrafted by another senior member of MHS staff. Mr Hogg said the final report reflected the "majority judgment of the professional veterinary staff who carried out the review". He said suggestions that important recommendations in the report had not been acted upon were "untrue".
Last June the amended report was issued for comment to the Meat Hygiene Service industry forum - representatives of the meat and poultry industry, including the National Farmers' Union - and was made available to the public on request from last August.
"There was never an attempt at any kind of a cover-up," said a ministry spokesman. He insisted that that any examples of "bad practice" discovered by the inspectors would have been dealt with immediately "well before the draft report was even written".
Mr Swann said he had never seen a copy of the amended report so he had no idea how much it differed from the original draft. In March last year he became assistant chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA after failing to become head of operations for the MHS himself. Mr Soul was appointed permanently to the post.
Despite the ministry's insistence that the amended report had been made publicly available both the European Commission in Brussels and Prof Sir Hugh Pennington, chairman of the expert group investigating the Lanarkshire outbreak of E coli food poisoning, said they had not been sent a copy. The professor said he was a "bit annoyed to say the least".
The Meat and Livestock Commission, the agency which promotes British produce at home and abroad, said last night that it had not seen the report until Wednesday morning. This admission from the body which is drawing up plans for a re-structuring of the entire British slaughterhouse industry called into question just how widely the report has been circulated. "We have asked around and we cannot find any of our officials who has seen it until now," a spokesman said.
07 Mar 97 - Hygiene fears threaten abattoirs with ruin
David BrownTelegraph ... Friday 7 March 1997
David Brown assesses the impact of the controversy on a struggling industry
The row over hygiene in abattoirs has shaken an industry already facing economic ruin brought about by plunging profit margins and huge over-capacity.
Plants which invested millions to comply with EU health and hygiene standards are among those poised to shut within a year under a £70 million "slimming down" plan now being discussed by the industry.
The Meat Hygiene Service report blames most problems on abattoirs where, to cut costs, speed has been put before quality. Much of the pressure for this has come not from profit-seeking but from the wish to avoid bankruptcy.
The Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that out of 469 licensed abattoirs in Britain - there are another nine in Northern Ireland - up to 30 major plants will have to close by the end of the year, costing about 2,000 jobs. These are among the most modern in Britain.
The best abattoirs are running on profit margins of no more than two per cent, a derisory figure in view of the investment involved. Average plants are operating on profits of one per cent and others are making losses.
Martin Palmer, head of abattoir industry strategy at the MLC, said yesterday: "We have a major structural problem in the industry. The plan is to fund the cuts with a levy on the surviving abattoir operators. Originally, farmers were reluctant to accept the possible closure of their local slaughterhouse, but they are coming to see that something has to be done. It's a bit like hearing your local shop is closing. You have to know that there is an alternative elsewhere."
Abattoirs are a vital part of Britain's £10.2 billion meat industry. In a "normal" year they kill about 3.3 million cattle, 19.4 million sheep and 14.4 million pigs, but confidence in meat safety, severely damaged by the BSE beef crisis, has hit demand and profits. This year, as the emergency BSE cull lessens, abattoirs will be fighting among themselves for animals to kill. By the end of the year they will also face higher charges for destroying offal.
Before BSE controls, this was sought after - and paid for - by rendering plants for conversion into animal food and tallow. The Government is subsidising renderers to the tune of £118 million to process the waste but this is expected to end in months.
John Dawkins, who operates a major abattoir in Warwickshire, said: "The public will get totally the wrong impression from this E coli controversy. We don't accept cattle that are too dirty. They are sent back to the farm. "We have regular inspections from the Meat Hygiene Service and we pay £15,000 a month - £180,000 in meat inspection charges to ensure the meat we sell is safe."
Abattoir companies blame the Government for much of the industry's problems. They point to the fact that since the first of them began to adapt the higher specification EU export standards more than 20 years ago, too many others were encouraged follow. Many slaughterhouses that did not modernise were allowed to stay in business.
David Maunder, a director of Lloyd Maunder, an abattoir and meat processing company employing 800 people at Willand, Devon, criticised the Government for yielding to pressure from farmers and other critics and negotiating "derogations" which allowing some abattoirs to avoid upgrading their plants to EU standards.
Of the 469 British plants, 224 have upgraded to EU export standard, 200 are exempted, because they normally slaughter no more than 1,000 cattle a year. The remaining 45 are still operating under "temporary derogations" to the EU standards which they should have implemented, originally by 1991, later put back to 1993. The result was over-capacity.
He said it was unlikely that abattoirs would start washing cattle and sheep before killing them. "Washing livestock was tried in New Zealand but it was found that the bacterial counts in those carcases was higher than in the unwashed ones.
"It is true, in the natural way of things, that animals can have traces of excrement on them when they are slaughtered. The main safeguard is the skill of the slaughterman as he prepares the carcase to ensure that none of this contaminates the meat."
It was "difficult to deny", he said, that low profit margins and the drive for productivity by slaughtermen was leading to contamination of meat in some plants.
07 Mar 97 - How the wording changed
By Robert Shrimsley, Chief Political CorrespondentTelegraph ... Friday 7 March 1997
The degree to which the draft report on hygiene standards in Britain's abattoirs had been bowdlerised can best be seen by looking at the difference in the two sections on animal hygiene.
It devotes 10 pages to "dressing hygiene", discussing in sometimes stomach-churning detail the risks and recommendations. But the final report reduces those 10 pages to one page and just nine paragraphs.
Crucially, while the E coli virus is mentioned in the draft, it is excluded from the final version of the report. On the risk posed by dirty carcasses, paragraph 7.17 on Page 19 of the draft stated: "Major faecal contamination on the carcass, due to poor dressing practices, is a serious cause for concern.
"Dirty animals arriving at the abattoir are a cause of further contamination. Organisms, such as Escherichia coli 0157 and salmonella can be introduced into the plant on the skins of dirty livestock." However, by the time the final report appeared, this had been reduced to: "The inspection teams were particularly concerned with carcass contamination from the skin and from gastro-intestinal contents."
The final version of the report makes no mention of other concerns. These worries included the washing of offal in "static tubs of water", and the fact that the "spinal cord was not fully removed from all bovine carcases", and that "bones containing spinal cord may be processed into animal feed, providing a possible source of infection to cattle".
06 Mar 97 - E coli warning 'was covered up'
By George Jones and Joy CopleyTelegraph ... Thursday 6 March 1997
The Government was plunged into a new row over food safety last night after allegations that the Ministry of Agriculture suppressed a damning report by its own hygiene inspectors warning that abattoirs were becoming breeding grounds for the E coli organism which has killed at least 20 people by food poisoning.
The report exposed serious lapses of hygiene and warns of "major contamination" of carcasses by animal excrement. The allegations that the report was not published could lead to new demands for the resignation of Douglas Hogg, the Agriculture Minister, who last month survived a Commons censure motion on the Government's handling of the BSE crisis.
Labour called for a Commons statement, claiming that if the report, which was prepared in 1995, had been made public, lives might have been saved in the recent E coli outbreak.
The Ministry of Agriculture rejected as "nonsense" the allegation that the report had been suppressed. A spokesman said that it had been circulated to the meat industry and while it had not been published formally it was available to "members of the public who telephoned the Meat Hygiene Service".
The report, Red Meat, leaked to the Financial Times, alleges that abattoirs were being contaminated by the admission of filthy animals for slaughter. It was drawn up by a government inspection team that visited every abattoir in Britain. According to the report, animal faeces that could harbour the E coli 0157 organism were finding their way on to carcasses being prepared for human consumption. "Major faecal contamination on the carcass, due to poor dressing practices, is a serious cause for concern," it says.
"Dirty animals arriving at the abattoir are a case of further contamination; organisms such as escherichia 0157 and salmonella can be introduced into the plant on the skins of dirty livestock. Most plants have no formal procedure to clean up dirty stock." The inspectors recommended that a national policy should be devised to define unacceptable contamination and urged that dirty animals should be refused entry at all abattoirs.
The Financial Times claimed members of the inspection team were encouraged by Ministry officials to water down the report because of the damage it would do to the meat industry. When they refused, a decision was apparently taken not to publish. It quoted Bill Swann, editor of the report, as saying that if its recommendations were fully implemented the risk from E coli would be much diminished.
The Ministry tried to play down the significance of the report yesterday. A spokesman said a summary went to a Meat Hygiene Service Industry forum last June.
The world's worst outbreak of E coli food poisoning began in Scotland at the beginning of winter. John Barr, the family butcher implicated in the outbreak, closed his shop in Wishaw, Lanarkshire. Three months later the epidemic had left 18 pensioners dead, while more than 400 people had been taken ill.
The Government ordered an inquiry and appointed a team of investigators, who tracked the source of the outbreak to bacteria found in the gravy and meat of pies produced by John Barr & Son in the Wishaw shop.
Mr Barr, once voted best butcher in Scotland, was charged with culpable and reckless conduct in relation to the alleged supply of contaminated meat. At the end of last month he was allowed to re-open his shop, to a remarkable show of support and goodwill from customers.
Last month, bereaved families formed Hush, a support group, to demand "full and honest disclosures" of actions by all parties involved in the tragedy, including Mr Barr, the Government, and health and environmental officials. Paul Santoni, solicitor for the families, said the number of dead and those still displaying symptoms - including children - served as "a gruesome and poignant reminder" of the need for legislation and justice.
07 Mar 97 - Ministers in clash over abattoir safety fiasco
By George Jones, David Brown and Auslan CrambTelegraph ... Friday 7 March 1997
Douglas Hogg, the Agriculture Minister, was increasingly isolated after the Government was accused of putting lives at risk by ordering the toning down of the report - which warned abattoirs were a breeding ground for E coli, salmonella and BSE - and then suppressing it. There was a further setback for Mr Hogg when he clashed with Michael Forsyth, the Scottish Secretary, who was "incandescent" over the handling of the report.
A picture of confusion, buck-passing and incompetence emerged yesterday as the Government tried to extricate itself from the latest in a series of damaging scares about food safety. During angry exchanges in the Commons, John Major denied that the Government had suppressed the report drawn up by the Meat Hygiene Service more than a year ago.
A leaked copy of the draft report warned that carcasses were being contaminated with faecal matter and urine from slaughtered animals which could allow meat to be contaminated from the E coli organism, which has killed at least 20 people through food poisoning.
It also found that spinal cords were not always being removed from carcasses, which meant potentially BSE-infected matter could have been added to animal feed. It made 81 recommendations for better practice in abattoirs.
Mr Hogg, on crutches after breaking his foot falling down stairs, attempted to defend his department's handling of the report. He said it was an an "internal working document to be used by the Meat Hygiene Service. So it was not formally published."
But at Westminster, opposition MPs reacted with incredulity when Mr Major claimed it had not been given to ministers despite its highly critical assessment of hygiene standards in abattoirs. "There are huge numbers of working documents of this sort every year. If they all came to ministers for them to read, nothing else would be done at all," argued Mr Major.
Mr Blair said that was an "extraordinary" explanation. "Whether a report is shown to ministers should depend on its seriousness," he said. "Just when will someone in this Government take responsibility for the proper, competent administration of our affairs?" asked Mr Blair.
In a speech in Inverness today Mr Blair will announce that the setting up of an independent Food Standards Agency will be a Labour manifesto commitment. Mr Major accused the Labour leader of "raising scares" about the meat industry when the problems revealed by the report were being tackled. "There is no question of the report being suppressed," he said.
But the Government assurances that there was no cover-up were challenged on several fronts last night. Prof Sir Hugh Pennington, chairman of the expert group looking into last year's Lanarkshire E coli outbreak in which 18 people died, said the failure to alert his group to its existence could delay the publication of its own report, due out this month.
A Downing Street spokesman countered the professor's claims by saying that Ann Foster, one of Sir Hugh's team, was a member of the MHS ownership board and would have known about the report. She later denied any knowledge of the report, although she said she was aware that all slaughterhouses had been assessed.
In the Commons Mr Hogg said the report had been "made available to all concerned" including the Scottish Office - which ordered an investigation into the Lanarkshire E coli outbreak. However, the Scottish Office said that that it was also unaware of the report and received a copy for the first time yesterday.
Meanwhile, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the statutory agency that promotes British beef, lamb and pork, said last night that it had not seen the report on abattoirs until yesterday.
Mr Hogg also dismissed MPs' protests that they had not been alerted to the report. He said the annual report of the Meat Hygiene Service placed in the Commons library shortly before the summer recess said there had been a "review" of abattoirs - and MPs should have realised from that there would be a report and phoned up and asked for it.
Mr Hogg embarked on a determined attempt to undermine the credibility of Bill Swann, the author of the original 54-page report on the inspections of abattoirs across the country in 1995. Mr Swann, now assistant chief veterinary officer at the RSPCA, said his team had been told to tone down the paper, and that its publication had then been delayed and its circulation restricted to members of the MHS's industry forum.
The report was originally due for publication last March - at the time when the Government announced it had received scientific evidence linking BSE in cattle with a new strain of CJD in humans. He said: "I was told that it was not a good thing to release this type of document, giving the industry a battering, with BSE around."
But Mr Hogg told MPs that Mr Swann's professional colleagues found his draft report unsatisfactory. "They wanted him to change it because it did not reflect their views in carrying out the assessment. He decided not to do that. At that point they commissioned another expert to do the report on red meat. The report that emerged and was subsequently circulated to the industry represents the majority view of the veterinary experts," said Mr Hogg.
07 Mar 97 - Industry's dirty secret sanitised by official report
Owen Bowcott and Peter HetheringtonGuardian ... Friday March 7 1997
Inspectors' warnings of the health risks from abattoirs were toned down repeatedly
Livestock arriving at slaughterhouses in "dirty" condition - sometimes soiled with faeces - are a major source of contaminated meat, according to the suppressed report on hygiene in abattoirs.
Potentially fatal organisms such as E. coli 0157 and salmonella, the study noted specifically more than a year ago, are entering meat processing plants on the skins of infected animals.
Completed by a team of seven inspectors for the Meat Hygiene Service in December 1995, its detailed criticisms - based on visits to hundreds of slaughterhouses - passed through at least three subsequent versions. Increasingly sanitised, the later ones omit any reference to E. coli or other diseases. The final revised version was produced in August 1996 and given limited circulation in the meat industry.
But it is the earlier and longer text - written a year before 20 people died in a series of E. coli 0157 outbreaks in Scotland - which yesterday caused uproar at Westminster. Edited by Bill Swann, now chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA, and described as the Hygiene Advice Teams (HATs) Final Report, draft version, it is dated December 14, 1995.
Animal welfare, slaughter techniques, hygiene, cutting meat and freezing were all surveyed in the 54-page study. In some abattoirs, it said, some unloading ramps were too steep or non-existent so animals slipped. "Ventilation problems were common, especially in sheep lairages [pens], due to build-up of ammonia gas. Ventilation systems often compromised vermin control."
On pre-slaughter hygiene, the "state of the cleanliness of stock" was said to be the most important factor in ensuring carcass hygiene. "Many abattoirs do not have a policy with regard to dirty stock," the report said. "Animals which were clean on entry rapidly became wet and soiled in poorly designed or managed lairages. Efficient cleaning, good drainage and adequate bedding are major requirements."
The problem was seen as so serious that the report team "strongly advocated that a national policy be devised to define unacceptable contamination, and to standardise the industry's action where excessively contaminated stock are presented for slaughter".
On the cattle-line systems, the team said "dirty knives" were often used and workers frequently used the same hands to touch both the hide and meat without being washing. "Poor access to sinks and sterilisers was common."
The most critical comments came in the section on cutting up carcasses. "The action of plant staff, when contamination occurs, is... often incorrect. Gross contamination, resulting from ruptured stomachs or other viscera, is usually accidental but can increase if blunt knives are used.
"Major faecal contamination on the carcass, due to poor dressing practices, is a serious cause for concern. Dirty animals arriving at the abattoir are a cause of further contimination. Organisms such as E.coli 0157 and salmonella can be introduced into the plant on the skins of dirty livestock."
Spinal cord, the study said, was not being fully removed from all bovine carcasses, and bones containing spinal cord "may be processed into animal feed providing a source of infection to cattle".
Storage facilities were not always up to standard. "Carcass contamination in chillers was evident in some cases".
The final version of the report, entitled The Review Of The Hygiene Advice Team Audit Of Licensed Slaughterhouses In Great Britain 1995, reduces the different sections to a series of tables. It contains chiefly advice on what constitutes best practice rather than detailing what was found in the abattoirs.
Contamination of carcasses by faecal and stomach contents is mentioned. Generally the tone is far more upbeat and positive. The same team of seven MHS officials is credited in both reports.
"In many plants the advice given by the inspection teams enabled immediate modifications and improvements to be made," the report concludes.
MESSY DEATH IN KILLING MACHINE
Contamination is often inevitable, writes Peter Hetherington
Killing is fast, furious and efficient: it has to be in a country which processes almost 3 million cattle and 18 million sheep a year.
The day begins soon after dawn when the first animals are shepherded from overnight lairage pens - designed to calm valuable stock - into the nearby slaughterhouse. They are stunned, then shot between the eyes by a powerful pistol which fires a bolt.
Seconds after an animal collapses, its throat is cut, a hook is inserted between the hind legs of the carcass, and it is hauled up onto the production line.
Under the constant gaze of Ministry of Agriculture vets and Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) inspectors, spinal cords and specified offal are removed in line with regulations to avoid BSE contamination.
The Northern Counties abattoir, in Sunderland, is probably fairly typical of the 400 large slaughterhouses around the country, which have been heavily policed since the Government launched the MHS - from an assortment of local council departments, with varying standards - almost two years ago.
Richard Priest, Northern's managing director, said they always had a minimum of three MHS inspectors continually on hand, alongside a full-time vet. "They make a daily check over everything for cleanliness - and I mean everything - including the wagons bringing animals here. If they are not satisfied, we cannot start work. Policing has never been higher in this industry."
Mr Priest, who employs 80 staff handling sheep, cows and pigs, was at a loss to understand claims from the former MHS vet, Bill Swann, that some animals arriving at slaughterhouses could be caked with faeces, which contain the E. coli bacterium.
"If they came here in such a state they would be rejected," he protested. "We avoid buying animals where muck is clogged into the hide - that's bad farming practice and we won't have them."
His company has just spent pounds 2.5 million upgrading its Sunderland facilities.
Regulations from the MHS in every abattoir, soon to be updated, insist animals must be "dry and clean with regard to faeces and dirt", although a "very minor amount of loosely adherent bedding" (i.e. straw) is permissible. The MHS insists that animals "heavily clogged" with dirt should be rejected, or receive extra attention on the production line.
The message is driven home in auction marts, such as the Borderway complex in Carlisle, one of the largest in the country. Farmers, or agents, buying cattle are told on one large notice: "Dirty cattle cost money."
It adds: "Vendors... are asked to ensure that their cattle are clean at the time of marketing... any dirty cattle will be rejected at the slaughterhouse."
But one farmer, up from the Midlands, remarked: "Cattle do have a habit of peeing and crapping everywhere, and it's difficult to know how all the muck could ever be removed before slaughter."