Public summary of the meeting on
11th May 2000

The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) met at the offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Page Street, London on 11 May 2000. Members welcomed Mr Peter Jinman, who was attending his first meeting as a veterinary member of SEAC following Mr David Pepper's retirement from the Committee. Mr Pepper was thanked for his valuable contribution to the Committee's work during his 10 years of service.

The Committee conducted its regular review of research findings and epidemiological information on BSE and vCJD. Members noted the expanded form of monthly statements, published since April 2000 by the Department of Health, covering numbers of 'probable' as well as 'definite' cases of vCJD and which included those still alive. The Committee were informed that the total number of people who had died of vCJD now stood at 56. There were a further 12 probable cases either still alive or awaiting post mortem results making a total of 68 (since the meeting the CJD Surveillance Unit have notified the Department of Health of two further deaths from vCJD).

They were encouraged by the continuing decline of the BSE epidemic in cattle, particularly the decreasing proportion of four and five year old cattle developing disease. This may indicate increased feed control compliance prior to the implementation of further feed restrictions in August 1996.

Sir John Krebs and Suzi Leather, the Chairman and Deputy chair of the new Food Standards Agency (FSA), were introduced to Members. Sir John welcomed SEAC's involvement with the new agency and confirmed that the FSA would form part of the joint secretariat to the Committee. It was important for the FSA to be able to draw on the independent expertise of SEAC when formulating food safety policy. Members welcomed the formation of the new Department and agreed to an alteration of SEAC's terms of reference to incorporate the FSA. Members also agreed to reflect devolution within the revised terms of reference. The Committee noted that the management of certain TSE research projects relating to food safety had passed from MAFF to the FSA.

Sir John explained that he would be participating in a review into the way risk assessment is used by Government scientific advisory committees. This would be led by the Chief Scientific Adviser, who would be seeking input from SEAC. The Committee briefly reviewed the formal process of risk analysis. Members agreed that their primary role was to advise on the levels of risk, and that it was the role of policy makers to decide how to use that advice in risk management and communication. Members noted that formal analyses of TSE risk are particularly difficult due to the many uncertainties surrounding the subject.

Finally, Sir John drew SEAC's attention to the review of BSE controls and summarised the way that this would be conducted. The review would be the responsibility of the FSA with expert advice from SEAC. The Chief Scientific Advisor, Chief Medical Officers in the UK, and the Chief Veterinary Officer would also be involved. Following discussion with the acting Chairman, additional input would be sought from outside experts, including an economist.

Members considered European proposals on the removal of specified risk material (SRM). Under the proposals, all EU Member States would be required to remove certain high risk tissue from all cattle and sheep. The Committee welcomed the proposals and agreed they would represent a significant step forward even though they would require some adjustment to the present UK SRM controls. In relation to cattle, Members noted that the Commission proposal would result in the removal of intestine and thymus from cattle over 6 months old rather than from all cattle as is currently the case in the UK. SEAC were content with the proposal in relation to cattle thymus but felt that the change in relation to cattle intestine might represent an increased risk, although this was likely to be extremely small. With sheep, Members agreed that it would be preferable to continue to remove whole sheep heads rather than, as proposed by the Commission, the skull including brain and eyes, and from all sheep rather than those over 1 year old. They noted, though, that sheep SRM removal was based on the theoretical possibility that BSE may have passed to sheep and current measures were based on a risk reduction not a risk elimination strategy. On balance, however, the Committee felt that the benefit of introducing controls on SRM across the European Union, outweighed the slight increase in risk that may arise from any consequential change to the UK's existing controls.

The Committee considered MAFF's initial ideas for reducing scrapie within the national flock. Members agreed that improved understanding of the genetics involved in disease susceptibility could be exploited to devise intervention strategies to reduce the prevalence of disease. A targeted breeding programme using resistant rams would increase the numbers of ewes carrying resistant genes. There was some concern that targeting breeding may remove positive traits from some sheep breeds, and that resistant alleles may confer resistance to clinical disease rather than prevent infection. Overall, however, Members agreed that early consideration should be given to a targeted breeding programme in conjunction with suitable disease accreditation schemes.

Members agreed to commission a risk assessment to attempt to quantify the risk to public health if BSE was found in sheep. It was also decided to convene a sub-group to guide the process.

Members considered a draft report assessing the theoretical risk of person to person transmission of vCJD from surgical instruments, which had been revised to take account of the conclusions of a recent scientific peer review of earlier work. The Committee endorsed the modelling on which the report was based, but concluded that the input value assumptions, which reflected estimates of relative levels of pre-clinical infectivity theoretically possible within various body tissues, needed further consideration. To that end, members agreed to set up a sub-group to look again at some of these key assumptions. The Committee next meets on 17 July 2000.

SEAC
June 2000