Official Report 145KB pdf
Welcome to the Health and Community Care Committee. We are to consider food protection orders on amnesic shellfish poisoning.
I am pleased to be here on my first visit to the Health and Community Care Committee. I am sure that the convener is right to say that this will be the first of many visits, many of which I hope will be pleasant and all of which I hope will be searching.
Before you take questions from members of the committee, I want to pick up on your comment that there is on-going monitoring in the closed areas. How often does that take place—is it on a daily basis, for example?
Typically, the monitoring is carried out fortnightly.
You mentioned a couple of issues that I wanted to raise. Is testing in certain areas less frequent than in others? The Orkney Fisheries Association, for example, felt that its area was subject to less frequent testing than others, which means that there would be a longer time lag before the ban could be lifted there. I—and, no doubt, the association—welcome the fact that there has been a partial lifting of the ban, but could you indicate whether testing around Orkney is less frequent than it is elsewhere?
The testing programme has been developed and has evolved over time. It is based very much on the scientific advice that is available. A balance has to be struck between conducting testing often enough to detect any changes and too frequently for changes to have been able to take place. Those involved in the testing programme know from experience how long it generally takes for levels in a given area to decline. That broad principle underpins how testing is carried out. There are some variations in specific areas, and I am sure that Godfrey Howard from the Marine Laboratory would be glad to provide further details on that now, if appropriate, or later.
I should be happy to hear from him.
In answer to the convener's question, there is not less frequent sampling in Orkney. A boat was sampling in the area yesterday and samples will be sent to the Marine Laboratory today. We have fishing boats on charter sampling in the north Minch, the south Minch and the Sound of Jura, and in Orkney.
Obviously, the first imperative is to protect the public, but this is a disaster for the fishing industry. What steps is the minister prepared to take to compensate our fishermen?
The member raises two important issues, and it is appropriate that I deal with them separately. One is public health; the other is compensation. The orders contain no provision for compensation; that is not within their scope. In making a decision on the matter, the Executive and I had to be governed by what was in the interests of public health. It should be noted that the fishermen's associations in the areas affected by the bans recognise the fact that we have to implement the measures and support our actions. They understand that, from a public health point of view, the bans are necessary
I echo the minister's point: compensation is not really within the remit of this committee, even though we realise the human impact of the orders on the economy of rural Scotland, fishermen's livelihoods and so on. The fishing industry has acted responsibly on the issue; it is on record as saying that it accepts the bans and that public health is paramount. As the minister said, we need to protect the good name of the fishing industry, particularly the shellfish industry, in Scotland; the industry does not want to take chances with that any more than we do. However, compensation is for others to deal with.
I have just returned from a weekend of surgeries on the island of Mull, which, as the minister will know, is greatly affected by the problem. If my questions seem rather specific, that is why.
Mr Hamilton has raised a range of questions that I will endeavour to address as freely as possible.
That point was emphasised in the briefing note and by people in the industry. There may be some confusion about the issue, but the evidence in the briefing document suggests that levels of toxin change very quickly.
I am bound to reiterate what I have already said. The important point is that our judgments on this matter have not been arbitrary—they are based on sound scientific evidence. The people who are most closely involved in the testing programme know how frequently the tests should be carried out. I am conscious of repeating myself, but it is important to restate that we need to strike a balance between taking precautions to protect public health and not keeping waters closed for any longer than necessary if levels of toxin have dropped. As I have said, we have reopened certain areas where testing has shown that levels have shifted.
I have no problem with the minister's view that the protection of public safety is paramount in this situation. However, I would like to get some background to the problem. First, does the presence of the bloom always indicate the presence of toxin?
It is important to clarify that we are testing not for the existence of algal blooms, but for the presence of toxins in the shellfish.
With the convener's permission?
Yes, absolutely.
A couple of technical points need to be addressed. Dr Simpson referred to algal blooms. The word "bloom" is a misnomer, because the toxins are sometimes produced by low densities of different species of phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are ubiquitous. Sometimes they produce toxins; sometimes they do not. There are many different strains of phytoplankton, some of which produce toxins. We do not know what triggers toxin production. By monitoring phytoplankton, we have a theoretical indication of potential toxicity problems, but the theory is not always borne out in practice. The real test comes when we test particular shellfish for the presence of toxins. Such monitoring occurs throughout the year. Can I go on?
Please do.
The problem with scallops is that their metabolism retains toxins for longer than do those of most other species of bivalve shellfish. If most shellfish species, such as mussels and oysters, take in toxins, they get rid of them very rapidly once the causative organism has disappeared. However, due to their metabolic function, scallops retain the toxins and can do so for an extensive period. Despite a general decline in toxin levels, the levels can remain above the statutory maximum for some period.
Does that mean that if a small scallop starts to absorb the toxins, because the toxin levels are high, that whole generation of scallops is inedible and poisonous?
No. Once the causative organism has gone and the toxin is no longer being taken in, the scallops start to depurate themselves, but the depuration process can take a long time.
Have you any idea how long?
We have tested scallops for six months after the toxin-producing organisms have disappeared. However, I should emphasise that that was in the case of PSP—paralytic shellfish poisoning—not ASP, which we are dealing with now, although I believe that retention times are similar. Scallops, certainly, can retain toxins at detectable levels for at least six months and possibly longer.
I would like to come back to some specific questions, in particular the question of uniformity of treatment, which Godfrey may be the person to answer. Will you put on the record a commitment to uniformity of treatment in testing?
Do you mean the testing of incoming samples?
That is correct.
As is obvious, at the moment we are receiving a large number of samples from Scotland, but we are also responsible for toxin monitoring throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot ignore that simply because we have an extensive problem in Scotland. All the samples that we receive are logged and analysed in rotation.
Is there a commitment to uniformity of treatment or not? I understand the circumstances in which you work, but do they result in samples from some areas being treated more quickly than others?
No. The samples that we receive from the monitoring programme in Scotland are dealt with in rotation. For example, the samples that we receive today from the vessels that we have chartered will be logged this evening and worked on tomorrow and on Thursday. As soon as the samples come in they are all dealt with in rotation. We do not discriminate between areas.
It is the collecting of the samples that concerns me. The other aspect that concerns me is the scientific evidence on which you base the tests. It would be exceptionally useful if that evidence were disseminated more freely. There is distrust about the source of that evidence. It is undeniable that a lot of that distrust may be based on misconception, but I do not think that people in the industry are particularly aware of the basis on which you proceed. Will the minister give a commitment to ensuring that that information is disseminated more freely?
The scientific evidence to which Mr Hamilton refers is published annually, so it is widely available, but I will gladly ensure that it is widely disseminated. I encourage members whose constituents are interested in the matter to obtain a copy of the report on marine biotoxin monitoring and surveillance, published by the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen and to make it available to people by all means. It can only ever be in the wider interest of us all for people to have as wide an understanding as possible of the reasons we must take public health decisions of this nature. I am conscious that a lot of these issues are highly technical, but I agree entirely with the principle that those who are affected should understand the reasoning behind our decisions.
If this is a continuing problem—and it does seem to be getting worse—can Mr Howard give us some background on the kind of research that is being done and tell us what is happening with the research budget? Are we spending more money on research?
Various areas are being researched, many of which deal with environmental matters—if I can term them as such—such as the causes of plankton blooms. Not only toxic blooms, but plankton blooms in general, are being examined. Research is also being done into nutrient inputs—whether anthroprogenic or from natural sources—into coastal waters, and into alternative methods for the analysis of such toxins.
Is research going on elsewhere, as well as at the Marine Laboratory?
Yes. Research is being done in Europe and worldwide.
Is the Scottish research budget increasing?
I will answer this. The politicians always have to pick up the money questions.
Will the minister break down the £600,000 into monitoring and research?
It is about 50:50, but I would be happy to give exact figures to the committee.
I have one or two questions that pick up on what Duncan said. First, what is the level of dialogue between ministers and fishermen, growers and processors, who are obviously extremely anxious about their livelihood and the future of their industry?
I will deal first with the question about meetings. It is necessary to distinguish between meetings on the health side and those on the industry side. As far as health is concerned, the rural affairs officials who are involved in the public health issues that this matter raises have had two meetings with relevant fishermen's representatives. Jim Wallace, a local member and I will have a meeting with the Orkney fishermen next week. It is not, however, my role as health minister to engage in wider discussions with the industry about its future. I am mindful of the wider issues and I can give an assurance that my colleagues Ross Finnie and John Home Robertson are having wider discussions. The Rural Affairs Committee will want to look at that.
That is one my concerns. Ross Finnie refused to meet the fishermen when he visited Mull last week on the ground that it was "not his responsibility". In this era of joined-up government, can we ensure that someone meets the fishermen?
I repeat that we are always pleased to have dialogue with representative bodies—and there is always room for improvement. I am confident that in this instance a lot of effort has been made to have dialogue. If any particular organisation feels that that is not the case, I would be prepared to take that up. As far as my responsibilities and the remit of this committee are concerned, I stress that our primary focus here must be the matter of public health. Any discussions with the industry ought to focus on that.
On behalf of the committee, I will write to the Minister for Rural Affairs to ask that he meets the fishermen to answer any of the questions that they want to raise with him.
Susan, we were throwing questions at you and you probably forgot to answer. I do not know how good your shorthand is—probably as good as mine—but I did ask whether, to your knowledge, there has been any evidence of over-fishing in adjacent waters?
I do not think that I am in a position to answer that question, but I am happy for it to be referred to relevant colleagues, or for it be raised and addressed in other ways.
On a point of order. This is the Health and Community Care Committee, which is looking at a specific problem from a health perspective. If we are concerned about other matters, we have the right as individual MSPs to raise issues with other committees. There is a danger that we will stray from our remit. I am not sure, convener, that your suggestion that you should write to Ross Finnie on behalf of this committee is within our remit. We are beginning to mix up the issues that are properly to be considered by this committee.
I will pick up on the minister's point about the difficult line between what is primarily a public health issue and its impact on people's livelihoods. Being aware of that is not the primary function of this committee, but I would not expect the Minister for Rural Affairs to be averse to taking a comment from us in the manner in which it was intended.
I am sorry, but although it would be competent for this committee to refer concerns with health implications to that minister, it is not for us to talk about a whole range of issues. That will happen with other things, as well as with shellfish. We must be clear about what we are meant to be addressing. If there is a matter to do with the livelihood of people involved in the industry, other avenues are open to us, individually and collectively, to deal with it.
The health committee must be concerned with public well-being. I like the tone of this committee and the fact that it is concerned. The more information that is exchanged, the safer the public is.
I will write to the minister in an individual capacity saying that I hope that he will listen to the fishermen.
The whole idea about joined-up government is that we cannot look at issues in isolation. As Dorothy said, the health and well-being of Scotland's shellfish fishermen is at stake. All sorts of things come into this. I think that the minister appreciates that. A meeting on this issue would be fairly sterile if we kept to a very narrow agenda.
We have a specific remit, whether we like it or not
We must engage in a commonsense debate about this issue, which keeps overlapping into wider issues, and it would be artificial for us not to allow that. The minister has given us some very interesting information. The fishermen have raised the issue of communication from a public health point of view and from that of their livelihood. It is difficult to find an absolute line that cannot be crossed. I will take advisement on the question after the meeting, but in this case we accept that there is a fine line over which the issue goes.
Will the minister be extra careful about publicity? She and others have referred to the fact that only scallops and queen scallops are affected and that mussels and other forms of shellfish are in the clear. The emergency prohibitions have to use the correct term—including the word shellfish—but we do not want the public to panic away from all shellfish.
We have to be careful not to speculate about the reasons why the toxins occur. That is not to negate the importance of asking the question. However, I think that it would be inappropriate—verging on irresponsible—for us to guess why the toxins should occur. As we discussed earlier, the important fact is that there is worldwide research into the problem, including a great deal of research in Scotland. As and when that research produces substantive findings, information will be shared and its implications will be considered.
I agree with the minister about the views of the fishermen. The feedback that I have had suggests that they are very supportive of the ban because it substantiates and supports their excellent product, which they have marketed very well over some time. On the west coast of Scotland, fishing is not just an industry or a few jobs, it is part of the culture, and is the backbone of the whole economy.
It is a totally naturally occurring phenomenon. There are several algal toxins. Today, we are dealing with a toxin called ASP; we deal regularly in Scotland with two other toxins: PSP, paralytic shellfish poisoning and DSP, diuretic shellfish poisoning. Paralytic shellfish poisons have been known as a problem in shellfish for several hundred years—they are very well documented. The other toxins that we are dealing with are newly discovered, in the sense that they are newly identified toxins. In the past, problems caused by those toxins may well have been ignored because the symptoms that they would have produced in humans would have been put down to something else. It is only now, with the help of more sophisticated technology, that we are able to analyse and identify them. As I explained earlier, the toxins are produced by phytoplankton. Something switches on the toxin-producing mechanism; we are not sure what that is, but the toxins occur naturally and have been known about for a long time.
Have you ruled out those toxins being brought about by any other type of fishing off the west coast?
There is no evidence to support that.
So why did it not happen before 1990?
It did; PSP has been known in the UK, and there have been recorded fatalities from PSP intoxication in humans since the mid-1800s. Those fatalities have been recorded. In 1968, 76 people were hospitalised in a major outbreak of PSP intoxication in the Newcastle area, caused by eating affected mussels originating from off the coast of Northumberland.
If you are not sure what caused the occurrence in 1990, that might point towards a repeat, or even an annual, occurrence, which is the last thing that we want. I take Mr Henry's point about financial resources, but does Mr Howard feel that adequate scientific resources are being put into researching this topic, in order to ensure that we can get to the bottom of it and deal with it once and for all?
The level of research into the topic will be unable to prevent outbreaks, although further research could identify the causes more adequately than we are able to at present. I should say—and this refers to Dr Simpson's questions about the annual recurrence—that in previous years we have had severe problems with PSP in different places. As Susan Deacon said, there have been widespread closures of scallop grounds in the past. This year, we have had very little PSP, although we have an ASP problem. I said earlier that there was a big outbreak, and recurring outbreaks, of PSP on the east coast of England. Those outbreaks have ceased or have been reduced almost to zero over the past five or six years. However, we are picking it up in other places; for example, in other areas of England.
Does it concern you that you do not know its cause?
No, because—as I said—toxins are produced quite naturally by phytoplankton. I do not know the reasons for that; people are looking for reasons, but they have not found any answers yet. At the moment, our job, and our primary concern, is to prevent toxic shellfish from reaching the market.
My final point concerns the lifting of the ban. As you are monitoring over such an extensive area, is there likely to be a partial lifting of the ban or will the ban remain in place over the full area that is covered by the statutory instruments?
We have not only indicated that we are willing to consider a partial lifting of the ban, but we have already done so. In the case of the Orkney order, for example, part of the affected area was reopened at the beginning of September. Through the monitoring and testing processes that have been described, we monitor the situation continuously and we will be willing to lift the ban partially when we can be confident that it is safe to do so.
I have one question to ask on these ubiquitous phytoplankton, as I believe you called them: are these blooms of them, which I gather are just a sort of splurge, occurring more frequently? Are we dealing with some climatic change here? Mary was trying to address that question. Is this simply a phenomenon on a long cycle, which may have occurred previously but was not identified, or could it be associated with changes that we should be concerned about?
It could be part of a long cycle. It could—and I stress the word "could"—be part of a wider environmental change.
We just do not know?
We just do not know.
We are at least considering that?
Yes.
The minister may be glad that I now return to the subject of health. First, have there been any fatalities from ASP rather than PSP, about which I know a little? Secondly, are there specific centres that are dealing with the problem, or is it not serious enough to have to be dealt with in specific health units?
In reply to Dr Simpson's first question, no cases of ASP have been recorded in Scotland. However, we know the impact that ASP can have in other countries. As recently as 1997 there was an outbreak in Canada, involving 107 cases and four fatalities. That is evidence of the impact that the poisoning can have.
Are such cases determined as a reportable incidence, as there are many cases of food poisoning and this type would not necessarily be plucked out of the figures?
I am told that such cases are reportable as food poisoning.
They come under the broad brush, then.
You said, Godfrey, that ASP is caused by naturally occurring algal blooms. These blooms disappear, but toxin can remain. Is that correct? At what point is the prohibition lifted? Is it when it is clear not only that the blooms have disappeared, but that all traces of the toxin have disappeared? Secondly, do shellfish dispose of the toxin—I cannot remember the technical word that you used for that—in a consistent manner. In other words, if it is identified in a sampling process that the shellfish are clear of the toxin, could remnants of the shellfish congregation or grouping retain traces of the toxin?
With the committee's agreement, I would be happy for Godfrey Howard to deal with the detailed scientific points raised. I have here a detailed map of the toxin levels in the different areas affected, which some of you will have seen. As I indicated earlier, decisions on the ban and on the order relate to the maximum level of 20 µg of domoic acid per gram of tissue; that is the level stipulated by the European Union, above which we would be required to take action.
Hugh mentioned the shellfish getting rid of the toxins by what we call depuration. Unfortunately, the depuration of the toxins from the tissues of scallops is not a linear curve—it does not occur on a straight-line declination. The scallops can change the toxin from one component to a more potent one, although that takes a long time.
That begs the question: how can you be confident about lifting the ban in certain areas if the process is such a long one and if, as part of that process, the scallops can change the nature of the toxin? How can you be absolutely certain that, in the areas in which the ban is lifted, there is no further risk to public health?
Because there has never been evidence that the toxin increases again once it has declined below a particular level. We have a lot of data on this, going back many years, and have never yet been proved wrong. There could always be a first time, but we are fairly confident that, when we give scientific advice that an area is safe, it is safe.
I call Duncan Hamilton to speak, and then, unless anyone has any further comment or question, I am minded to move on.
I just have three quick—and, I promise, final—questions.
Mr Howard will answer the first two questions and I will answer the third.
Mr Hamilton talked about the toxins in the different tissues of the scallop. The toxins are fat-soluble; they tend to concentrate in the fatty tissues of animals. In the case of scallops, the toxins concentrate in the digestive gland—the hepatopancreas—which is a non-edible part of the animal. The toxins also tend to concentrate in the gonad—the roe—which is one of the edible parts. As we are required to test the edible part, or any portion thereof, and the gonad is an edible portion that concentrates the toxin, our test is conducted on the gonad.
On the third question about lifting the ban, it is fair to say that we are using a combination of absolute measures and an element of judgment. The level that is laid down in the EU directive is the absolute measure. The element of judgment relates to the level that is found within a particular box, and—as you rightly say, Mr Hamilton—within adjacent areas; judgments are made on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, in reaching a decision to lift a ban, I am guided by scientific advice because, as I said, there is a great deal of experience about what levels are safe, and that knowledge allows us to reach a reasonable conclusion.
So the decision is reached case by case?
Decisions are reached ultimately on a case-by-case basis, within the stricter framework that is laid down in the directive.
I now ask the minister to sum up and to put her motion to the committee. We shall then move to the vote.
I will sum up very briefly. I hope that the committee has found it useful to have an opportunity to go into the background to these orders and the science that underpins the testing and monitoring. My primary concern, which I hope will be shared by the committee, is to ensure that we, as the Government, act responsibly and take suitable precautions to protect public health and the public interest. Clearly, in doing that, we are mindful that such decisions can have implications for the industries concerned. We want to ensure that consumer confidence is protected so that, when people go into shops anywhere in the country, they can be confident about the food that they buy and know that we have taken all available steps to ensure that they can have that confidence. That is the basis on which we have taken action and on which I commend the motion.
Thank you, minister.
Motion agreed to.
That the Parliament Health and Community Care Committee in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (Scotland) Order 1999 (SSI 1999/26) recommends that the order be approved.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament Health and Community Care Committee in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 1999 (SSI 1999/27) recommends that the order be approved.—[Susan Deacon.]
The question is, that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
I thank, first, the minister for giving us her time; I know that she is very busy and that this issue is only one of many on her desk. I also thank the officials who came with the minister, particularly Mr Howard, who has answered our questions thoughtfully and at length. It is clear from the interest shown and the comments and questions that the committee takes this issue seriously—as a public health issue and in terms of public confidence in the shellfish industry and the fishing industry generally. We appreciate the depth of the answers that we have had from the minister and the officials.
Meeting closed at 15:15.