Rural Development Committee, 23 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 23, 2001

Official Report 177KB pdf

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

The committee is to consider an interim paper from the reporter, Rhoda Grant. I invite Rhoda to address her interim report.

The paper is a little out of date. I had hoped to have it at our previous meeting, but for various reasons that did not happen. Things have moved on, and rather than delay it any further I felt that it was important to put the report to the committee as it is, to ensure that it turned up on today's agenda.

As I understand it, the trigger levels were one of the issues of concern as they were set at a very low level. The working group was considering that issue. My understanding is that it has recommended to the veterinary group that the trigger levels should remain. The whole process is back with the veterinary group, which will have to consider it.

Those of us who were involved in this issue last year will remember that the trigger level for action on box closures was 20 micrograms per gram. The trigger level—I cannot say "now" because it has not been approved—that is being considered is 4.6 micrograms per gram. That would mean the boxes would be subject to end-product testing and the live market would not go ahead in the same way as it has. Although it would probably mean that white meat could be sold all year round, the bureaucracy attached to ensuring that scallops picked at that trigger level would make that very difficult. I am concerned about it and am keen to hear the committee's thoughts.

I would like some clarification. I have read the report but there are some things that I do not quite understand. Under "trigger levels" you say:

"When the action level is exceeded in the whole animal … the tiered approach can be operated, thereby allowing the harvesting and marketing of the edible parts of the scallop which would otherwise not be accessible".

Are there parts that are always accessible for eating and that do not cause any problems?

The white-meat part of the scallop rarely contains any toxin. The parts that are more often thrown away tend to have the highest toxicity. The edible parts tend to have a lower toxicity, although the roe tends to have a higher toxicity than the white meat, which is seldom affected at all. With the lower allowable level of toxins, the market would almost become white meat only. Anyone who buys scallops is aware of the possibility of buying the white meat of scallops imported from outside the European Union for very little money. Divers and small businesses here would have great difficulty competing against that if they were selling only the white meat.

What is the Commission trying to do about the level? Is it trying to balance the interests of the industry with those of safety? Should the trigger level be higher? If it were, would that not particularly threaten the safety of the consumer?

The problem is that there has not been a lot of work on determining the level that is dangerous. The 20 micrograms per gram level was almost plucked out of the air following an outbreak in Canada. It was used as the safe level. As far as we know, nobody in this country has ever been poisoned by amnesic shellfish poisoning, even before we started testing for it.

The reason behind the trigger level is to take into account the fact that two scallops side by side may display very different levels of toxicity. Testing is carried out in boxes: a few scallops are picked and tested. Under the present system, if their toxicity level is less than 20 micrograms per gram, the box will remain open. The argument against that method is that the scallop beside the one tested may have a much higher level of toxin. The trigger level has been set so low that end-product testing offers a high level of protection.

Following meetings with representatives of the Food Standards Agency, I feel that we need to do more work to find out what the exact safe level is. I understand that all the research that has been carried out on the subject is being brought together. That means all the papers that have been written on the matter, even if that is not an awful lot. I do not think that that will be completed until the end of the year, however. I am concerned that the European standing veterinary committee will make its decision before the information is available and may have to change it. It has taken a couple of years to get that committee to examine the system.

This committee is in a difficult position on this issue. We hear that there is not enough research. We might wish to comment on that shortage and the need for more.

Recommendations are made at the end of Rhoda Grant's report. It would be good if the Health and Community Care Committee would examine the issue. I propose that Rhoda remains the reporter if she so wishes and that she reports back on what she has referred to in section 2 of her report—on what the standing veterinary committee comes up with in the end.

This is clearly a big issue for the industry. The fisheries on the west coast have enough to contend with without another adverse development. It is important that we strike a balance between safeguarding public health and ensuring the viability of the industry, which has gone through tough economic times over the past few years, particularly on the west coast.

I suggest that we send a copy of Rhoda Grant's report to the various organisations that represent the industry, perhaps with a covering letter from the convener outlining that we still have an interest in the issue and that we are continuing to monitor it, and asking them whether they have any comments, to apprise us of their current views.

I congratulate Rhoda Grant on her report. As far as I know, the only cases of ASP have been in Canada and involved mussels—there has never been a case of humans being poisoned by ASP in scallops. Scallops are a high value food: they are used in Coquilles St Jacques, including those served abroad. Scallops are considered a prime Scottish food. At the moment, Chilean scallops of inferior quality are taking up that market, which we do not want to lose.

A portion of Coquilles St Jacques has an average of three whole scallops. That is hardly likely to poison anyone, even at a level of 20 micrograms per gram. It is ludicrous to bring in a level of 4.6 micrograms per gram. As much as I put public safety first, that level means that some of the closed sea boxes may never re-open. They may never be able to meet an average level below 4.6 micrograms per gram.

The scallop fishermen and growers are in a wretched position: they have been sitting earning nothing and, despite endless appeals from MSPs, they have received no compensation. The FSA is going over the top.

It was the European Commission, not the FSA, that recommended the lower level of 4.6 micrograms per gram.

I thought that the report was written by the FSA.

No. I believe that the FSA stated last week that it did not make that recommendation, which I believe was made by the European Commission.

In the interest of my constituency, I echo Jamie McGrigor's words. The impact on the Mallaig fisheries would be quite devastating if a level of 4.6 micrograms per gram were introduced. I also echo something Rhoda Grant said: there has been no instance of humans catching this illness. I acknowledge that it is an extremely unpleasant illness, but there has been not one case with the existing level. That seems to indicate that the existing regulations have had a degree of effectiveness.

The convener has clarified the point about the Food Standards Agency. It carried out the consultation and responded on Scotland's behalf, but it did not propose the figures. I should also say that a level of 4.6 micrograms per gram would not close the box; it is a trigger level that allows for end-product testing to take place in that box. The box will never be closed, whatever the problem is.

When end-product testing is used, the live market is lost. A system of traceability is required to ensure that scallops coming out of boxes that have reached the trigger level are being processed and tested properly.

That is more of a worry to small rather than large fishermen. If you are dealing with huge quantities of scallops, you have to have one in a batch tested. Depending on how the batch size is set, that will not be so difficult. However, because of the scale involved, it is a more expensive proposition for a diver to have to have one or two of their scallops tested.

We are not happy with the trigger levels and we need to point that out to the Minister for Health and Community Care as well as to the Health and Community Care Committee. We also need to look carefully at the process for tracing scallops, as that is where problems could arise for small fishermen. If the system is to be totally bureaucratic, it will be expensive. That would make it uneconomical, whereas if a sensible process for tracing were introduced, that would make things a bit easier. Given that the European veterinary committee will make the decision, I do not know how much influence we will have on that process, but what I describe may be worth doing.

I take your point about the live market, which is not a big percentage, but it is valuable.

That market is lucrative.

Would it be possible to have two testing systems—a live-product test and an end-product test for the scallops when they are processed? The tests would then happen before processed scallops entered the food chain, which is surely the safest time for testing.

That is basically what will happen. At present, the boxes will be tested as normal. That will allow the live market to continue. However, when the trigger level is reached, the live market will be stopped because scallops will have to be end-product tested.

But the new trigger level will mean that there will be no live or dead market.

Does Rhoda Grant know why the European Commission hit on 4.6 micrograms per gram as the trigger level?

No. The industry wants that information. The Food Standards Agency said that it is willing to give me, as reporter to the committee, the information that it submitted during the original consultation. The only problem is that we cannot obtain the information that other countries submitted, because it is confidential. We have no access to that information. All that we know is that the figure appeared from somewhere and was chosen because of the variability of scallops in the same box. We do not know who argued for 4.6 micrograms per gram because we have no access to other countries' submissions. We have no access to the reasons for recommending that level.

I am happy to let the topic run on, because members have many questions. The committee will want to decide what it can agree to do.

Does Rhoda Grant think that it would be useful for her to meet members of the European Parliament to discuss the issue?

The problem is that the process involves the veterinary committee, not the European Parliament. The change is not to the directive but to the way in which the directive is implemented. MEPs are not involved. Few politicians are involved in the process, which involves vets and experts. That is why it is difficult for us to have an input.

Perhaps we should ask some of our Irish colleagues how they have sustained their shellfish fishery in the past two years. They have complied with European regulations in a different way. As we have heard from Rhoda Grant and others, it is absurd that we should now have a trigger level of 4.6 micrograms per gram when we did not have a problem at 20 micrograms per gram.

The high value in the scallop is in the live sale. If that is restricted by a much reduced trigger level, the scallop industry will go into sharp decline. We should make the strongest protests about the proposed trigger level to our European colleagues or to the Scottish Executive. I do not think that the scallop industry will be happy to accept the new level. We should give it our support.

John Farquhar Munro has reminded us that the issue is not new. Many of us have considered it for a long time. We have made inquiries about the method by which the Irish Government took different measures. At the risk of committing a minor diplomatic gaffe, I say that we have not received a reply. Whatever methods are being employed are not being fully shared with us. I am writing down the suggestions that have been made and I propose to sum up shortly, if members wish it.

Notwithstanding the fact that this has not necessarily been a matter for the European Parliament, the politicians there have a role and can certainly be of assistance in asking questions of the Commission and trying to get information. If a decision has been made to put this proposal forward, it is reasonable and legitimate to ask for the information on which that decision has been based. I do not know why we could not do that. We should try all the channels to get that information, so that Rhoda Grant can put further proposals to us.

There is a large measure of consensus in all the views that have been expressed. I thank Rhoda Grant for the work that she has put into writing this paper. Is the committee happy to approve the terms of the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

The recommended action in the paper is that we refer the report to the Health and Community Care Committee. I suggest that we accept that recommendation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Several other suggestions have been made, which we should incorporate in our response. First, Elaine Smith suggested that more research is needed into the science behind the proposed new trigger level. Various members questioned the basis for the recommendation of the new limit of 4.6 micrograms per gram. It would therefore be in order for the committee to express its grave concern that the proposed new trigger level does not appear to be based on valid scientific data—at least, no data that have been communicated to us.

Secondly, John Munro and Richard Lochhead made the point that if the trigger becomes law, it will have an extremely detrimental impact on shellfish fishermen in Scotland and a potentially terminal impact on the livelihoods of many fishermen. If that view is agreed, we should consider to whom our opinions would most appropriately be conveyed, in addition to the Health and Community Care Committee. I endorse what Cathy Jamieson said: parliamentarians of all forums have a role to play, and individual members can take up these issues with elected members of all parties.

Does the committee feel that the various other bodies to whom we could make representations should be in receipt of the views that we have reached today and a copy of the paper? I am thinking in particular of the standing veterinary committee, which has the primary responsibility for making a decision, and the Food Standards Agency, which also has a role to play in Scotland. I think that it was Rhoda Grant—forgive me if I am wrong—who suggested that we should also convey our views to the Minister for Health and Community Care as well as the Health and Community Care Committee.

Finally, Richard Lochhead suggested that as time is probably short, it would help if we conveyed Rhoda Grant's report and the consensual views that we have reached to fishing representative bodies such as the SFF, the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association and other interested bodies. I am sure that the clerks can provide a list of other bodies that would be affected.

If I have missed out any suggestions, I would be happy to incorporate them in our response.

We heard from Ross Finnie that ministers have direct access to the European Commission in matters for which the Parliament and the Executive have responsibility. We should therefore not just pass the information to the Minister for Health and Community Care, but request that she find out what the limit of 4.6 micrograms per gram is based on.

That is a sensible suggestion to supplement what we have agreed.

We have been talking about the scallop fishermen; we have perhaps forgotten the scallop growers. Scallop growing is considered to be a fish farming industry of the future. If it is stifled at birth, as it were, the west coast will lose a potentially big industry for the future. It is therefore very important that the scallop growers, as well as the fishing interests, receive our comments.

That point is well received by the committee.

Do members have any further views, or have we set out a clearly agreed line of action based on the work that Rhoda Grant has undertaken on behalf of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

I hope that the expression of such a clear and strongly held view will show the committee's desire to protect our industry and safeguard public health.

I have a final point. Would it be worth while inviting other Cabinet ministers to attend the committee over the next year or so, to discuss what their portfolios do for rural Scotland? We always receive the same answers. I am not criticising the minister—for understandable reasons, it is difficult for him to answer some of our questions and that makes it difficult for us to get the answers. Can we decide now to invite other Cabinet ministers to attend the committee for half an hour or so each over the next year?

Every year we are required to complete our budget process, and today we have taken evidence to allow us to do that. We always have the opportunity to call before us other ministers, especially in relation to the impact that their departments' spending has on rural development. I am sure that that opportunity is always open to us, to be used when it is appropriate and bearing in mind ministers' other commitments.

Meeting closed at 15:41.