Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take,
if any, in response to the European Union’s expected
reintroduction of processed animal protein into livestock feed
from August.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, the EU is introducing changes that follow the World
Organisation for Animal Health feed rules, and its own agreed
road map. These permit the feeding of porcine processed animal
protein to poultry and poultry processed animal protein to pigs,
and ruminant gelatine and collagen, and protein derived from
insects, to pigs and poultry. The Government are assessing the
implications of these changes.
(Con)
My Lords, given the association of processed animal protein with
BSE and CJD in the past, if, having assessed the situation, Her
Majesty’s Government decide to ban the import of food produced in
this manner from the EU, is there a mechanism in the trade and
co-operation agreement that would allow for that? If so, is there
a means of making it legally effective in Northern Ireland, given
the protocol?
(Con)
My Lords, I first say to my noble friend that the experience of
BSE has scarred both me and the Agriculture Minister, ; we both
well remember that awful time. I assure him that at the moment we
receive into this country meat products from countries that sign
up to the OIE, that are of a lower standard even than the one to
which the EU will go following the changes it has announced.
There is no question of this concerning any trade and
co-operation agreement, and meat products will still be able to
be traded to and from Northern Ireland, as they will with the EU.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, feeding animal remains—brains, spinal cord and small
intestines—to livestock in pursuit of higher profits and
executive bonuses will only lead to another health disaster. Will
the Government legislate to ensure that appropriate food imports
from the EU will carry a warning, stating that the product
carries a risk of mad cow disease?
(Con)
May I reassure the noble Lord that we are not talking about BSE
here? We are talking about the products of pigs and poultry, for
which there is no evidence of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy. He can be assured that the strictest regime
remains in place to protect the public and our animal health, and
that any changes we make can reflect this. To the wider public I
would just say, “Buy British”.
(UUP)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s decision to sign up to the
Northern Ireland protocol has placed the Province’s agri-food
businesses in an increasingly perilous situation. We were
promised that Brexit would improve food standards right across
the United Kingdom, but this will not be the case if processed
animal protein is allowed to enter the food chain in Northern
Ireland. The noble Lord, , mentioned Northern Ireland. What representations have
her Majesty’s Government made to Brussels to stop this policy
being extended into Northern Ireland? Can the Minister tell the
House whether was aware that the EU’s ban on animal protein was
about to be lifted before he agreed to place a regulatory border
in the Irish Sea?
(Con)
The EU made this announcement in May, but it had been under
discussion for a long time—even when we were an EU member. It
does not affect trade in Northern Ireland or in this country,
because our current standard is the same as the EU’s. The EU is
changing that standard, but it remains considerably higher,
covering countries around the world from which we receive meat
imports. This issue is not affecting the Northern Ireland
protocol or any other aspect of trade with Northern Ireland. We
have ongoing discussions about it with the EU at a scientific and
animal health level, and will continue to do so.
(Con)
What does my noble friend think will happen to our meat exports
from the UK to the EU, at a time when we may import meat from
countries, such as Australia, which use hormones to produce beef
and other methods that we do not accept here and are not accepted
in the EU? Would it not be better, at this stage, to agree an SPS
system similar to that agreed between New Zealand and the EU, to
make sure that we can export meat to the EU?
(Con)
I entirely understand the point my noble friend makes, but we
must not conflate issues relating to trade agreements with this
particular issue. We have the highest standard here, which was
brought in in a very precautionary way, at the time of a terrible
disease. Science, and our understanding of this disease, has
changed. Our ability to track where processed animal proteins
come from allows for a change in policy. We have not taken that
step yet, but we will consider it in due course with all the
evidence. We must not conflate it with the trade issues that are
so important to your Lordships.
(LD)
My Lords, feeding animals processed animal protein is a revolting
practice. Poultry, pigs, sheep and cows are not carnivores; they
are vegetarian. Can the Minister give reassurance that no meat
from animals fed on processed animal protein will enter the UK
food chain? No matter how many standards and checks he thinks are
in place, this should not happen, and the meat should not come
from any country that has this practice.
(Con)
Processed animal proteins have long been established as part of
the rendering process. As a result of BSE, changes were made to
prevent them. Currently, all processed animal products from this
country are exported across the world for the pet food industry.
We import vegetable proteins, such as soya, from countries which
have much lower standards of agricultural environmental
protection. I assure the noble Baroness that we are very cautious
in this country about reducing the standards that were brought in
at the time of BSE. What we are talking about here is TSE—about
pigs, poultry and parts that are heat-treated and are an
alternative to the proteins that other farmers use.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about trade; the effect of the
Northern Ireland protocol, as agreed, is that these SPS rules and
laws apply directly in Northern Ireland, uniquely within the
United Kingdom. Therefore, how does he protect consumers within
Northern Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere, when not a single Member
of the Northern Ireland Assembly or any Member of Parliament in
either House will be able to prevent this proposal becoming law
in Northern Ireland, which is an outrageous abuse of the
sovereignty of Parliament and “taking back control”?
(Con)
I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. The truth is
that products will be coming from around the world—from the EU
and beyond—into supermarkets in Northern Ireland and the rest of
the United Kingdom, as they are this very day. They will be up to
a particular standard, and will not be ruminant to ruminant, so
in that respect, Northern Ireland will be no different from the
rest of the United Kingdom. But I recognise the democratic point
the noble Lord makes; that is the issue of the Northern Ireland
protocol which, if he will forgive me, I will not go into today.
(CB)
My Lords, based on scientific evidence, the EU proposals allowing
certain processed animal protein, including insect protein, to be
used in some livestock feeds—not for ruminants, I stress—appear
safe and economically beneficial. What encouragement are Her
Majesty’s Government giving to the development and use of insect
protein as a replacement for soya in animal feed in this country?
(Con)
The potential use of insect protein is an attractive concept,
along with other potential changes to livestock feed controls.
They will require careful consideration, assessment of the
scientific evidence and, of course, consultation. Before taking
any policy decisions, officials will obtain advice from
government scientists and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous
Pathogens regarding any potential risk to human or animal health.
As part of the assessment, we will look at the environmental
impact of any changes on current imports of protein, such as
soya, and our current exports of animal proteins not used in
Great Britain.
(Lab)
My Lords, we all want to preserve the UK’s excellent reputation
as producers of the highest quality and safety of food. What
matters here is that we get a crystal-clear response about what
the Government plan to do, but I fear that what we have heard is
something of a holding response. It would be enormously helpful
to producers and consumers alike if the Minister could be clear
about the Government’s intention regarding whether to maintain
the current situation in the UK and, if so, for how long, and, to
assist those of us attempting to hold the Government to account
on this matter, whether they will undertake to conduct their own
review of the science in this area and to publish it so that we
can proceed with some kind of ability to assure consumers.
(Con)
I will take that last point away and try to give the noble
Baroness some reassurance. These are not state secrets, and there
is nothing that I fear sharing with anybody about the work that
the Government are doing. Our response to changing science and
changing understanding means that there is a degree of
uncertainty for everyone, including Ministers, and I assure her
that we have been considering this for a long time. The measures
that were brought in for pigs and poultry were precautionary
because it was not possible at that time to easily detect the
origin of the protein. Now, with DNA, we can, and this may be a
path to offering the kind of clarity that the noble Baroness
seeks.
