Horsemeat ‘posed no threat’ because meat origin known
Andrew Rhodes, head of operations at the Food Standards Agency (FSA), said: “It depends whether the origin is unknown or not. What we have seen in these cases is that the traceability immediately showed where the horsemeat had come from.
“As it had come from approved slaughterhouses, the issue here was really labelling and that’s how we can say we don’t believe there was a risk.”
Rhodes told Food Manufacture’s webinar – Horsemeat: learning the lessons of an avoidable crisis – that impossible to trace meat would have given rise to food safety concerns. “If there was a possibility we couldn’t determine the origin of the meat, then we couldn’t rule out a food safety issue because then it would not have passed through all the appropriate checks and the full screening that animals normally go through before they enter the food chain.
“But, in this case, we were able to demonstrate where these products had come from and therefore able to investigate the fraud.”
Speaking before the webinar – sponsored by business law firm DWF – Rhodes had categorically denied that the horsemeat scandal posed any food safety risk – even meat contaminated with the banned veterinary drug phenylbutazone or bute.
Banned veterinary drug
Commenting after the revelation that Asda had sold corned beef contaminated with horsemeat, which was found to contain bute, Rhodes said: “What we have found in this positive test result is a very, very low level of phenylbutazone – four parts per billion, which is only just above the level of detection, so it is a very low reading.”
The FSA boss went on to reassure consumers about the low risk to human health from eating the product. “It is extremely rare that people have an adverse reaction to phenylbutazone.”
In January, shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh had told the House of Commons that bute was a “known carcinogen”.
Meanwhile, in response to a question from the audience, Rhodes and other webinar speakers praised the handling of the horsemeat crisis. “I think initially everybody looked inward and asked themselves whether there had a problem not yet detected and that is an understandable reaction,” said Rhodes.
“I think it is true to say industry spokespeople were not particularly prevalent during the early weeks of this. Then they were spending an awful lot of time understanding if there was a problem and what the scale of that problem was and what they were going to do about it and I think that is quite an understandable reaction.
“But, overall, the reaction after that was very positive, very pacey. We were the first country to get a grip with what was on our shelves,” said Rhodes.
‘Massive political and media issue’
Professor Tony Hines, head of food security and crisis management at Leatherhead Food Research, said: “I think initially the food industry was taken by shock and it became a massive political and media issue very quickly. But very quickly the UK food supply chain was verified as being largely intact. We came out of the FSA testing programme very well.”
Hilary Ross, partner with business law firm and event sponsor DWF, said that initially the industry lacked a unified response. “The issue arose so quickly and there was so much pressure to respond it was difficult to get together to have a unified approach,” said Ross.
“Also, I don’t think that would have been welcomed by the consumers or the politicians. It would look like they had been working together and since it became clear what had happened, there has been a unified approach through trade associations like the British Retail Consortium.”
Missed the webinar? You can listen again to the presentations and the following question and answer session here.
Meanwhile, Food Manufacture’s Food Safety Conference takes place on Thursday October 17 2013 at the National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull, West Midlands.
