Cold turkey
Hugh Macpherson
Any sufferer whose intestines have been invaded by salmonella would readily testify to what a devilish bug the little fellow can be. But not even Beelzebub himself could have predicted that, when the mighty EEC Commission elected to deal with the poisonous parasites, the result would be a Byzantine bureaucratic nightmare which set our vets against our sanitary inspectors, made the National Farmers' Union enraged at the worthy fellows in Ag. and Fish, brought leftwingers in the Labour Party into warm agreement with Tory right-wingers about the disgraceful loss of poultry profits, have the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection subsidising a study from the Consumers' Association which makes a monkey out of official government policy—to name but some of the main contestants.
It all started when the EEC Commission issued a directive in 1971 which laid down certain hygienic standards for poultry slaughterhouses. The only birds which would be allowed on the market would be of the deep-frozen variety—which would have obvious advantages in moving and storing poultry. The effect of this Directive (71/118) was that from 1 July 1973, as new members of the EEC, we had to obey the poultry hygiene regulations in exporting birds to Europe and, by 1976, we had to obey the Community rules in distributing poultry inside Britain. In fact this meant that we could no longer have our traditional 'New York Dressed Poultry' but would have to eat solidly frozen birds. ('New York Dressed' birds are the traditional complete bird to be found hanging in the shops of the patriotic poulterers of England, preferred by one in four British shoppers.)
In addition, the responsibility for examining the hygienic conditions of poultry slaughterhouses would pass into the hands of the veterinary surgeons, with additional special training, which is normal practice in the EEC but a function usually carried out here by Environmental Health Officers, formerly sanitary inspectors. Since poultry producers will be faced with a charge of £10 an hour for the vets' services it is understandable that the farmers are enraged, the vets delighted, and the EHOs insulted. Some of these difficulties had been foreseen by Mr Neil Marten, the anti-EEC member for Banbury. In April 1972 he extracted the following promise on the question from Mr James Prior, the then Agriculture Minister, during the passage of the EEC Bill : 'I certainly give the undertaking to the Committee that we have no intention of allowing a situation to arise where this trade [selling uneviscerated birds] cannot continue if by 1976 it is still important for us.' Unfortun
ately the best that his successor, Mr Fred Peart, could manage was postponement of the regulations until 1981. The result is that Tory MPs have been inundated with letters from Women's Institutes objecting to the restriction in their choice of the kinds of poultry they could eat.
By the beginning of this year MPs were being hustled by farmers, the sanitary inspectors were girding their loins for industrial action, and Mr Fred Peart was looking distinctly harassed. At this point the Consumers' Association entered the fray, by using some money kindly, if inadvertently, provided by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to carry out a study on the health hazards involved in the sale of unfrozen poultry. The result was published in March of this year and to the delight of the sanitary inspectors, and the farmers, but to the chagrin of the EEC Commission and the vets, not to mention Mr Peart, the Consumer Association report concluded that there was more than twice as much salmonella poisoning to be found in the frozen poultry recommended by the EEC as in the traditional British bird which was supposed to be such a health hazard.
Of course a salvage operation was immediately mounted by the EEC, and by the Government, who attacked the Consumers' Association study as being too small and suggested that the independent body had misinterpreted its own figures which stated categorically that they found a contamination level of 35 per cent in frozen poultry against 16.3 per cent in our traditional unfrozen bird. The main point made by the Consumers' Association is that consumer choice should not be restricted unless there is a very good evidence of health hazards. What is more the Consumers' Association has some evidence that other countries— Denmark is an example—have achieved very low levels of salmonella poisoning by controlling the type of food given to poultry. Indeed there is a Protein Processing Order on the way in Great Britain which could do just that : it would ensure that the mash served to poultry was boiled beforehand. Further doubt is thrown on the absurdly complicated, and expensive, inspection apparatus by the consideration that much of the contamination could take place in the shops by the proximity of cooked meats ; and just to infuriate the sanitary inspectors further, the vets will only carry out a visual inspection of the passing poultry in the slaughterhouse, which hardly seems the best way of detecting an invisible bug such as salmonella.
It is little wonder that farmers, and farming MPs, are up in arms about the new provisions of the EEC Directive. The concern is by no means confined to the Tory party. Mr Norman Buchan, the Tribune group member who was a former Minister of State for Agriculture, is faced with a farmer constituent whose additional costs to meet the new regulations will exceed his yearly profits and it is hard to see him supporting his own party as the matter comes back to the floor of
the House to receive the further attentions of Members. And that is the rub. Lying on the Order P.aPer is an official motion signed by the offi ;tat oPPosition spokesmen Francis Pym and • 10 Davies, as well as by 114 other back o▪ enchers calling for new negotiations to allow the traditional British poultry trade to continue. At present the Opposition is not Pressing too hard for an early debate—a ,P°Int which has not escaped Mr Marten. !his could be achieved quite simply, by taking an early supply day, which is the Opposition', right, and voting down the Govern
s proposals. Certainly there would be soPport from the back benches opposite.
The simple point made by the Consumers .Association—that before any government Intervenes with citizens' rights to eat whaterverthey like, the burden of proving their ac1°11 necessary lies with the state—is a good elle. When, added to this, a bumbling bureshaueracY insists that hard-pressed farmers +1-°111d pay E10 an hour to vets to watch ',",me Poultry go by the burden of proof on e state becomes overwhelming. beIt seems likely that the Government will far forced to insist on the rights of British tners and consumers to sell and buy the P?ultry they want to each other. To do otherWI would be like insisting that the wine !rOwers of Bordeaux send their precious tild as wine essence to be diluted at the aes of Paris. And the great merit of the 'as several well-informed Euroburtucrats readily admit—is that silly regulasl°ns ean simply be ignored. If that happens fc}tne transitional help will be offered to the ,,ariners to Pay the vets. And if that is refused strlile directive will simply be changed. The p.Pretne weakness of bureaucracies is ex,.-sed when they encounter people who Ilnply will not play the game.
Previous page
