Foot and Mouth Disease: Public Health (Hansard, 26 April 2001)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)
My Lords, yesterday the Government placed the assessment of the effects on health of emissions from pyres used for the disposal of animals on the Department of Health's website. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

§ Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, despite the fact that the abiding image, and, indeed, the abiding reality, during this epidemic has been the burning of animal carcasses, only yesterday—two months into the epidemic—did we receive this rather hurried and inadequate report from the National Environmental Technology Centre. How can the Government argue that public health considerations have been uppermost in the minds of those dealing with the disposal of animals, when no proper risk assessment has been carried out until this point"? Is that the result of complacency by the DETR or of incompetence by MAFF?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I do not accept the points that the noble Lord has put forward. Of course, he knows that I answer here for the Department of Health—

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Of course, my Lords, I answer for the Government, but I do so from the 321 perspective of the Department of Health because this issue relates to public health, which is the responsibility of the Department of Health. I merely observe that the noble Lord missed out my department in his supplementary question.
On 1st March a substantial question and answer document, covering many public health issues, was sent to consultants in communicable diseases by the Public Health Laboratory Service in conjunction with the Department of Health. It covered a number of important issues in relation to public health.
On 1st April, because it was clear that problems of disposal were becoming particularly apparent in relation to large pyres, the Chief Medical Officer convened a risk assessment of disposals in general. It was important that the science was right. Therefore, care had to be taken over the quality of the advice that was being given. As part of that process, it was road-tested in the field. At local level, public health consultants employed by the health service took full part in discussions with other agencies. We take these matters very seriously.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, is it not the case that the greatest expertise in this field lies with DERA at Porton Down? Perhaps I may ask the Minister why that agency was not called in to carry out the assessments. It knows all about biological and chemical warfare and how to measure the amounts of such substances in the air. Why was that agency not called in when the public first started to express concern?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my understanding is that it was, indeed, involved.

§ Lord Boardman
My Lords, will any members of the public who suffer damage to their health from the burning of carcasses be compensated for that damage?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a rather hypothetical question. Of course, it would be up to individuals to decide what action to take. I should make it clear that there is no completely risk-free method of disposing of carcasses. However, leaving carcasses on the ground is not an option because the risks to health from material which may contaminate water supplies is too great.
The advice given and the risk assessment published yesterday state clearly that, as with any fire, pyres will release pollutants that can be irritants. However, the risks are considered to be small for people situated more than two kilometres downwind of small pyres and more than three kilometres downwind of large pyres. That advice is being made available. Decisions must be made at local level, taking into account the local environmental conditions. However, I believe that the advice that has been given will be helpful to people in making those decisions.

§ Earl Ferrers
My Lords, will the noble Lord, with his department, also carry out a risk assessment to public 322 health of animal carcasses which lie around in a state of decomposition because they have not been buried and which, as a result, explode and pass on the disease of foot and mouth to human beings?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a very pertinent remark. That is exactly why leaving carcasses on the ground is not an option and why we must pursue various methods of disposal. As I said, clearly there is no completely risk-free method. That is why the advice that has been made available is so important. We received advice from PHLS on 1st March, and the risk assessment is now available. The advice given to the field this week will help us to ensure that the risks are kept to a minimum.

§ Baroness Byford
My Lords, when the disease first broke out, we were told clearly that, once animals had been killed, there would be no further risk whatever to humans. However, in view of the noble Lord's Answer, that is obviously not true. As the Minister knows, in Devon enormous difficulty has been experienced in disposing of carcasses, and burning has been one method. Has the establishment in Devon decided to opt for smaller pyres, which apparently are less infective than the bigger ones? What is happening in Devon?

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I do not believe that anyone has ever said that there can be no risk whatever to the public's health. However, from the risk assessment published by the department, it is clear that that risk can be kept to a minimum when strict measures are in place, backed up by robust guidelines.
In relation to air pollution, the risk assessment refers, as an example, to 250 cattle or the equivalent burned over three days. It concludes that, based on modelling around a generic 250-cattle pyre, it is unlikely that anyone situated more than two kilometres from the pyre would suffer adverse health effects. Similarly, in relation to 1,000 cattle or the equivalent burned over three days, the conclusion is that, at a distance of three kilometres from the pyre, few acute effects on sensitive individuals, such as those who suffer from asthma, would be expected.