British ministers could lift BSE-era ban on animal remains in chicken and pig feed

Ministers may lift a ban introduced during the BSE crisis on the use of animal remains in feed for farmed chickens and pigs amid fears foreign producers are undermining British farmers.

A consultation has been launched in Scotland on allowing the use of processed animal protein (PAP) from poultry, pigs and insects, and it is understood proposals will be made for England and Wales in the coming months.

The EU banned the use of mammalian PAP in cattle and sheep feed 30 years ago following the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), known as mad cow disease.

The ban was extended in January 2001 to the use of all PAP in the feed of animals kept for food.

Brussels lifted restrictions on fish feed in 2013 and on chicken and pig feed eight years later under pressure from a powerful European agricultural lobby.

Boris Johnson’s government insisted at the time that Britain could make its own decisions after Brexit, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) enforced the ban.

British farmers have since complained that they are being undermined by their European rivals. In its consultation paper, the Scottish Government said lifting the ban would “level the playing field with the EU”.

There would continue to be a ban on the use of animal protein derived from ruminants, such as cows and sheep, fed to ruminants, as required by the World Organization for Animal Health.

Risk assessments carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency show that the current risk of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), such as BSE, in Britain would be very low if the proposal were implemented.

The return to the use of chicken and pig feed remains in feed and the introduction of insect porridge would also have potential environmental benefits by reducing dependence on soybean-based feed, which is reported to be a major contributor to deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse gases. .

However, the proposals have raised concerns. The first case of BSE was reported in Great Britain in 1986. It was widely spread by farmers who fed livestock meat and bone meal made from infected animals.

In Britain, more than 4 million cattle were slaughtered and 178 people died from the human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, after consuming contaminated beef.

In its contribution to the Scottish consultation, the British Veterinary Association said it was generally in favor of lifting the ban given the low risk of a TSE outbreak, but was concerned “about the animal health risks posed by other carry potential pathogens such as African swine fever, classical swine fever or porcine epidemic diarrhea virus’.

“As BSE has shown, unexpected disease breakthroughs can occur with hugely significant consequences for human and animal disease,” the report said.

“We are also concerned about the risks to animal and public health posed by the import of animal protein or the products made from imported meat, given the risk of less effective controls on inputs and the ability to improve quality and guarantee safety in the country of origin. .

“It is almost certain that once the use of these products is permitted in Britain, there may be pressure to allow their import from other countries. Before the use of such imported products is allowed, a clear and adequately funded certification and inspection regime must be put in place.”

Professor Andrew Knight, visiting lecturer in animal welfare at the University of Winchester, said: “I don’t think governments should expose farm animals and consumers to increased risks from the most serious pathogens in order to maximize an industry’s profits. ”

The Executive Director of Animal Equality UKAbigail Penny, said: “The thought of feeding ground up chicken heads, feathers, blood and bones to a farmed animal will naturally disgust consumers.

“But what should worry them more is that the experts involved in this process admit that they cannot say with complete certainty that changes to the diet will not be harmful to human health. If there is even the slightest doubt about the safety of this measure, why would we change the existing rules and risk it at all?”

The head of Compassion in World Farming UK, Anthony Field, said his organization could support feeding animal products to omnivores such as pigs and chickens, but had concerns about the use of insects.

“Insect production can increase inefficiencies in the system because it can rely on human-edible foods, including soy and grains, to be fed to humans,” he said.

“Given recent evidence that insects are sentient, it is critical to develop an understanding of their welfare needs during breeding and methods of humane killing before developing insect farming.”

The Insect Institute’s executive director, Dustin Crummett, said: “Insects that are produced on a large scale are largely grown on materials suitable for direct consumption by humans or other farm animals, meaning they inefficiently add a trophic level to the food system when used as animal feed. .”

A Defra spokesperson said: “We have strict rules in place on what can be fed to livestock to protect against disease and to maintain our high standards of animal welfare, food safety and biosecurity.

“We remain vigilant about the threat posed by BSE and continue to take decisive action to build on our strong progress toward its eradication.”