PUBLIC HEALTH (WITHDRAWN FOODSTUFFS) (Hansard, 17 March 1965)

§ Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North)

I raise the question of imported foodstuffs on this Adjournment debate mainly, though not only, because of an understandable and enormous concern which was felt in Newcastle in recent months when suspected corned beef was released for sale in error.

Before going into the Newcastle case, I believe that it is desirable in the public interest that the danger of typhoid outbreaks should once again be emphasised. Towards the end of the last century there were about 50,000 cases a year in this country, and many of them resulted in death. The disease at that time was caused, in the main, by insanitary conditions, by low living standards, and not least by unhealthy water.

In 1965 we are inclined to think that modern sanitary conditions, modern sanitation, and generally advanced and increased medical knowledge make such diseases past history rather than present danger. It came as an enormous shock, Therefore, when the Aberdeen typhoid outbreak hit that city, very much like a plague of days gone by, and I suggest this evening that the subsequent Newcastle scare is additional evidence of the need to avoid complacency and look to controls.

The Aberdeen outbreak was extremely serious, and the Government quite rightly set up a committee under Sir David Milne to inquire into its causes. It is now generally accepted—it can never be conclusively proved—that the outbreak was caused by the polluted water of the River Parana in far-away Argentina being used in the cooling process of tinned meat.

The River Parana has standing on it the town of Rosario, the entire sewage of which enters that river in an untreated state. The Rosario canned meat factory is probably one of the largest in the world, and it was discovered eventually 1434 by an inspector from this country that the chlorination plant there had been broken down for no less than fourteen months.

That leads me to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the personnel responsible for the inspection of foreign food supply sources have been increased. It seems out of all proportion, and indeed nothing short of a major public health danger, that until recently such inspection was carried out by two officers only. When we passed the Slaughterhouses Act, in 1958, we quite rightly insisted on 100 per cent. inspection of home-killed meat. I well remember our many sittings in Committee when we attempted to ensure the introduction of the maximum amount of hygiene in our slaughterhouses and meat storage plants and facilities. We seem to have closed the home loophole while leaving the foreign one wide open.

Long before the Aberdeen case—indeed, just over 10 years ago—there was the Pickering typhoid outbreak. Warning was given about the use of non-chlorinated water in this process. Is it not time that hygienic requirements were observed by establishments which export food products to this country, and that such requirements should be set out in a clear, standard form? I know that an international standard has been set down by a sub-committee of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. It can be reasonably argued that hygiene standards in relation to food should be constant throughout the world, and that if they have to be established in food producing centres we should not bear all the cost.

It is with the importation of boneless meat that we must be most concerned. I am advised that there are 700 different types of salmonella typhi which can affect such meat. I am advised that, quite apart from the occasional typhoid outbreak, this form of imported meat causes quite a lot of what we have come to know in these days as common food poisoning. As anyone who has any knowledge of the meat trade knows, it is comparatively easy to check a carcase, as compared with a tin. As far as can be determined, quite a high standard of checking is imposed upon animals for slaughter in most countries from which we receive carcases. There is a high 1435 standard of veterinary examination of the animal both before and after slaughter.

It is when the bones are taken from the meat and it is packed in tins or cartons of one sort or another that danger arises. It is difficult for the medical officer of health in any port to check tins of meat. I understand that an occasional tin is removed from a consignment and checked, but it is much easier to check the carcase.

I now turn to the details of the Newcastle case. On the afternoon of 18th December last year—months after the Aberdeen outbreak—a West Hartlepool shopkeeper noticed on his shelves a tin of corned beef bearing the code mark publicised by the Ministry of Health during its withdrawal operation some months before. Intensive inquiries resulted in the discovery that the tin in question had been issued from a Newcastle warehouse, from stock delivered to that warehouse on 13th June, 1964, a week after the Ministry withdrawal order had been completed. This stock had been put on one side, on Ministry instructions, and the issue of tins from it had been in error. I should like publicly to commend that shopkeeper's diligence. It resulted in a major hunt in the north of England for 900 tins of potentially dangerous food. The recovery was a difficult operation, and one which was not completely successful. I should like to suggest that this recovery should not have been necessary.

I should therefore like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary the following queries. When the strongest possible suspicion was attached to meat which had come from that temporarily ill-famed establishment in the Argentine, during that danger period when the chlorination plant was broken down, why was it not clearly marked in warehouses—in Newcastle or anywhere else—as being dangerous? Is it not deplorable that there should have been no suggestion that a chance was taken with meat which had passed through that canning factory during that danger period? Should there not be adequate powers for the immediate destruction of foodstuffs, imported or otherwise, which carry any health risk? Will the Minister look, as a matter of urgency, 1436 at those Sections of the Food and Drugs Acts which deal with condemnation of food unfit for human consumption, with a view to their extension?

Can he inform me as to the present whereabouts of the Newcastle consignment, which was put to one side last June? The latest information which I have is that the suspect beef is possibly for re-export—according to the Newcastle Journal for 9th February, 1965. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will recognise—as I am sure he does—the major interests of the trade interests in this unfortunate matter. I should like him to look at the possibility of legislation which will lead to compensation for the trade interests concerned should the meat have to be destroyed—compensation which would compare with that paid to farmers when stock is slaughtered on a farm on which there is an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

I should like the Minister to appreciate the general need, which the trade quite rightly sees, for public reassurance about canned meats generally, and to recognise that the Aberdeen outbreak was very damaging to the general business of canned meat. If canned meat is prepared properly, under correct hygienic conditions, it is first-class and can do a great deal towards augmenting our already short supplies of home-killed beef. It is a highly valuable and relatively cheap method of obtaining high protein.

Finally, I have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary the all-important question. Will he make arrangements, in the public interest, to ascertain the present whereabouts of all imported corned beef in the country? Will he make security arrangements, as a matter of urgency, with regard to this corned beef, wherever stocks are at present kept?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin)

I want, first, to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) for giving me this opportunity to deal with this serious problem. I congratulate him on choosing this subject, in the interests of his constituents, for an Adjournment debate.

1437 Obviously, the hon. Member has brought the matter before the House with the intention of allaying the fears which have been generated in the Newcastle area. I should not like his good intentions in this respect to create precisely the opposite effect in Newcastle and the rest of the country. I can assure him that there is no complacency at all—certainly not in the Ministry—about the possibilities of distribution of contaminated meat of this kind. We keep this matter constantly under review, and I hope, in the course of the next 15 minutes, to give him some idea of what the position is.

I ought to deal pretty fully with the situation at Newcastle. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that a shopkeeper in West Hartlepool on 18th December, 1964, reported to the chief public health inspector the possession of a can of corned beef bearing a serial number similar to a series of which the withdrawal had been advised in June 1964, following the outbreak of typhoid fever in Aberdeen. I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the vigilance of this shopkeeper and to his public spirit in raising the question with the authorities.

Immediate inquiries were put in hand, and it was ascertained that the can was part of a consignment of cartons delivered to a Newcastle-upon-Tyne warehouse in June 1964. I want the date to be quite clear in the hon. Member's mind, because the entire consignment of which this can was a part was invoiced as canned in April 1964, after the end of the period—which was 1st January, 1963 to 31st March, 1964 in respect of which withdrawal was advised. This can of corned beef and these cartons of corned beef to which the hon. Member referred were canned afterwards and they were in no way a part of the consignment which resulted in the outbreak of typhoid at Aberdeen. The consignment was therefore not subject to the Health Departments' advice about withdrawal.

Nevertheless, the distributors instructed the warehouse not to release it in case the mark of identification on the cans which was very similar to that on withdrawn cans—caused confusion. This was the reason why it was withdrawn. Unfortunately, this fact was not made sufficiently clear at the time to all those con- 1438 cerned, and when it came to light on 18th December, 1964, that some cartons had been distributed, the similarity of the code markings caused those locally concerned to assume that suspect stock might have been accidentally released.

Acting on the very proper principle of being more rather than less cautious—and I hope that throughout the length and breadth of this country, wherever there is any danger of any kind, all people, and particularly local authority people, will err on the side of caution rather than take any risks at all—the distributors themselves, together with the Newcastle Public Health Department, immediately took steps to get the cans returned to the warehouse.

At first it was thought that only 80 cartons had been released, but by the time that 80 cartons had been recovered a precautionary check on the invoices of other firms in the area had revealed that 150 cartons had been issued, which I take it is the equivalent of the 900 tins to which the hon. Member referred. On 11th January, therefore, within 10 working days of the initial suspicion—and I think that the hon. Gentleman should recognise that and realise that there was haste—because of the widespread nature of the small deliveries involved, the Newcastle Public Health Department alerted all local authorities in the area to co-operate with them in the recovery of the cans of corned beef about which the suspicion had been aroused.

When the returned cans had been subjected to expert scrutiny, it was confirmed that none of the cans which had been issued from the warehouse bore serial numbers which indicated that they were of suspect production. In fact, they had all been cooled in chlorinated water. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member that the local authorities did precisely what ought to have been done. The fact that there was the slightest suspicion meant that they were quite right in dealing with the matter in this fashion.

Quite frankly, in respect of the Newcastle incident, while we agree completely that it was the correct and best possible thing to do once suspicion had been aroused, there is no evidence at all that any of the suspect stock withdrawn in June 1964 had been released. We have 1439 asked firms to take precautions against errors which would result in the accidental release of such stocks.

My right hon. Friend said in the House, on 8th February last, that there was no reason to suppose that the statutory and voluntary measures for controlling withdrawn foodstuffs were not working well. What I have said tonight bears that out. However, this is not to deny that there may always be the possibility of human error. No one is immune from making mistakes. No system devised to deal with an operation of the kind carried out in June, 1964. in which more than 1,300 local authorities, together with innumerable shops and institutions, were concerned, can be guaranteed to achieve 100 per cent. success. It is impossible to say that somewhere, something will not go wrong, that something will not slip through the net. But the general effectiveness of the withdrawal operation and the subsequent detention of suspect stocks seems have been quite remarkable, owing to the efficiency of public health staffs and the ready co-operation of the firms and commercial establishments involved.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the dangers of eating imported canned meat. I agree that it is obviously easier to deal with carcase meat than meat of this kind, but do not let us get this out of proportion. We must keep the whole thing in perspective because corned beef of this kind makes a great contribution to the food of this nation. While I accept that there is always the danger of food poisoning as distinct from typhoid, the evidence suggests that most of the cases of food poisoning emanating from this quarter are the result of food handling after it has gone into the shops rather than anything else.

There are a few facts I will put before the House. Since 1955 we in this country have consumed about 600,000 tons of corned beef, enough to provide more than 3,500 million meals, a meal being a portion of about 6 oz. Over this period, a total of 550 non-fatal cases of typhoid have been attributed to the consumption of corned beef. There were no deaths at all where typhoid spread by this medium was the primary cause.

The risk, then, is about one non-fatal case of typhoid per 6½ million meals of corned beef, and even this infinitesimal 1440 risk will have been much reduced following the introduction of extra precautions against future outbreaks. We must, therefore, get this whole matter in perspective. There is a danger, in a debate of this kind, of creating a great deal of fear in the minds of people who eat corned beef. As I say, we have taken precautions and it is worth comparing the figures I have given with the risk association with, say, crossing the road. About 65,000 people were killed and 3,400,000 injured on our roads in the period I mentioned, in the last 10 years. We must, therefore, get clear in our minds just what the dangers and risks are.

The question remaining in relation to stocks of corned beef that have been withdrawn from sale is what should be done to secure their safe disposal. The Milne Committee said that, given an acceptable method of pasteurising the suspect cans, there was no reason why they should not be so treated and then released for sale in the normal way. When the Report of the Milne Committee was published in mid-December, we wrote to the United Kingdom importers and distributors advising that their stocks should remain withdrawn from sale and asking whether they proposed to re-process the meat or dispose of it—other than by selling it to the public in its untreated form. Less than a month later we sent them details of an approved method of pasteurisation designed to render the meat absolutely safe for human consumption without impairing its quality. We are in constant touch with the trade, and we already know that some firms intend to use this method to re-process their stocks. The detailed application of this method is still under consideration. Another firm is shipping its stocks back to South America for reprocessing and distribution locally.

I must emphasise however, that the final decision on the future of these stocks is one for the firms themselves to make; our duty is to safeguard the public health by seeing to it that none of the suspect meat is released for sale without further treatment. I am satisfied that our arrangements to this end are working well with the full support of all those concerned.

I could not think in terms of giving the same form of compensation to the traders in canned meat that we give to 1441 our own farmers, but to go into that argument now would not allow me time to answer some of the questions the hon. Gentleman has asked.

The hon. Member has asked about compensation for condemned food. This does not arise at the moment. With regard generally to food condemned as unfit for human consumption, however, normally one would expect contracts at various stages of the trade to include warranties as to the fitness of the goods handled. Thus the trader holding the condemned goods would look to his supplier for redress, and if the goods were unfit before they reached him, he in turn, would look to his supplier.

The importation of any meat or meat product is prohibited unless the Government authorities of the exporting country have attached to it an official certificate attesting satisfactory ante-and post-mortem inspection of the animals, and adequate conditions of hygiene at all stages of production. Such certificates must be formally recognised before trade can begin. The administration of the official certificate procedure is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. To avoid any possible doubt, our comprehensive and detailed hygienic requirements were notified last autumn to all exporting countries whose certificates had been recognised. Those requirements were actually spelled out in the way asked for by the hon. Gentleman.

British inspectors visit overseas establishments in the first instance to explain our hygienic requirements, and thereafter there is a regular check on the standards of inspection and hygiene practised in the country of origin. The Milne Committee recommended that the Inspectorate should be augmented; this was, in fact, done before the Committee reported. We now have four inspectors, and while that may not seem many, we think that four are adequate to deal with the particular countries from which we import these foodstuffs.

Under the Imported Food Regulations, the port medical officer has powers to examine and take samples of any food, including canned food, admitted to this country through the port for which he is responsible. Any food found unfit is not allowed to proceed for human consumption. When there is evidence of a specific 1442 hazard from imported food, the Government take it up with the Government of the exporting country and, if necessary, arrange for appropriate action here, such as intensive sampling at the ports.

Once food intended for human consumption enters the distribution chain within the country, further samples can at any time, under the powers contained in the Food and Drugs Acts, be taken by any authorised officer of a local authority, and if he thinks that the food is unfit, he may seize it and take it before a justice of the peace, who has power to order the destruction or disposal of condemned food under the supervision of the medical officer of health. These powers are freely used.

In addition, public health officers, in co-operation with food traders, regularly secure the voluntary removal from the market of any foodstuffs which might carry health risks, without the formal exercise of statutory powers. This sort of daily co-operation, freely given, is, I am sure, the right way to ensure a healthy food supply.

Ministers do not have powers, over and above those exercised by local authorities under the Food and Drugs Acts, to condemn food or require it to be withdrawn, but past history has shown that when they have had evidence which warranted advising the withdrawal of suspect food, firms have co-operated voluntarily, as at the time of the Aberdeen outbreak. The law places on the trade the responsibility for ensuring the safety and good quality of the food it sells, and traders have never up to the present shown themselves unwilling to shoulder their responsibilities, even in circumstances where the disadvantages and difficulties to them are obvious, so long as the facts are clearly placed before them.

Obviously, I cannot deal with all the questions which the hon. Gentleman asked me, but I thing that in the general statement that I have made he will see that every precaution is taken by my Ministry and by the local authorities. There is a very high degree of co-operation with every section of the trade, whether wholesale or retail, and we are really satisfied that with the improvement of the inspectorate overseas and with the spelling out of the requirements to the exporting countries and Governments, we have gone 1443 as far as is humanly possible in order to safeguard the health of the people of this country