Header imageLink to The BSE Inquiry Home pageLink to Key to footnotesLink to Who's Who sectionLink to Glossary sectionLink to Chronology sectionLink to HelpLink to Search page
Volume Specific - Index | Glossary | Who's Who

Volume 7: Medicines and Cosmetics
8. Cosmetics and toiletries
Cosmetics and BSE - a chronology
June 1989
January 1990
February/March 1990
April/May 1990
July 1990
March to May 1991
June 1991
July/August 1991
October 1991
November 1991

Return to top of page
June 1989

Return to top of page
The Interim Report of the Tyrrell Committee

8.35 The Interim Report of the Consultative Committee into Spongiform Encephalopathies (the Tyrrell Report) was submitted to MAFF and DH in June 1989 but not published until the following January. The section of the Report dealing with research propositions drew attention to the possible risk - or at least uncertainties - of transmission of BSE through cosmetics:

Some uncertainty remains as to whether all the possible routes of transmission from bovine (and ovine) tissues to other species have been considered and appropriate action taken. Small scale users of bovine products, such as the cosmetic industry, may not be covered by the present regulations and guidelines. 1

8.36 Although cosmetics are specifically mentioned here as an industry that might not be covered by existing regulations or guidelines, no steps were taken to bring this to the attention of DTI, the Department with policy responsibility. It was not until February 1990, following a request for advice from DTI, that the cosmetics industry became the subject of cautionary guidance.

Return to top of page
January 1990

Return to top of page
MAFF is asked about cosmetics

8.37 In January 1990, Mr Maclean, a Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, answered a written Parliamentary Question on the use of bovine material by the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries. His answer, which officials drafted in consultation with DH, said that the returns from the pharmaceuticals industry confirmed that 'only a small percentage of their products include materials of bovine and other animal origin' and that he had 'no comparable information about the cosmetics industry'. 2

8.38 Again, we are not aware of any follow-up resulting from this matter being raised.

Return to top of page
DTI asks DH for advice on cosmetics

8.39 Mr Roscoe, Head of DTI's Chemical Hazards Section of the Consumer Safety Unit, told us that he first made the connection between BSE and cosmetics in January 1990 through a conversation with Professor Dayan, of St Bartholomew's Hospital. From this conversation he learnt that 'the BSE virus' was not killed through normal industrial processes. Aware that some cosmetic products included offal, Mr Roscoe sought advice from Dr Fielder, the Section Head of DH's MED TEP/HEF M. 3

Return to top of page
DH consideration of Dr Fielder's letter to Mr Roscoe

8.40 On 26 January Dr Singh, a Senior Medical Officer at MED TEP, sent a minute to Dr Pickles and Mr Love of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), copied to Dr Fielder, attaching a draft reply to Mr Roscoe's request for advice. 4 The draft stated:

I am replying to your request for advice on the safety of the use of extracts of bovine offal in cosmetics, with respect to BSE. As you are aware there are a number of cosmetic products on sale in the UK that contain small amounts of such extracts, primarily from spleen and thymus.
Whilst accepting that any risk is likely to be very low, we believe that it would be prudent to take similar action to that already taken by MAFF in the Food Area. Where cosmetic formulations use extracts of bovine offal derived from UK cattle, they should ensure that this is obtained only from animals of under six months of age. Alternatively they should consider the use of material derived from outside the UK.
We accept that the risk of transference by the oral route is likely to be negligible, and that it is even less likely to be transmitted through intact skin. However cut or abraded skin would not offer as effective a barrier, and it would be wise not to use preparations where there is any chance of infection.
We would be grateful if you would transmit these recommendations to industry via the Trade Association CTPA. 5

8.41 In commenting on the draft letter, Dr Pickles expressed concern about permitting the use of bovine offal from British calves under six months of age. 6 She explained why it had been decided that for food consumption calves of this age group did not present a problem, but thought with regard to cosmetics that 'application to broken skin is getting rather close to parenteral administration. Together with problems of policing the 6 month limit, and the fact that the "benefit" from such material is so dubious, I would prefer to see a complete ban.' 7 She enclosed a briefing note, 8 along with copies of the Southwood Report (to pass on to DTI) and Tyrrell Report (for Dr Singh's colleagues).

8.42 Within the MCA Mrs Shersby sent copies of Dr Singh's draft to Dr Jefferys, Dr Rotblat, Dr Raine, Dr Winship, Dr Purves, Mr Sloggem and Mr Love. She reminded them that the BSE Working Group (BSEWG) had decided at its meeting on 6 September 1989 that its recommendations should not apply to topical products (see Chapter 6). She asked them to 'address the point about application of topical products to abraded skin, in particular'. 9

8.43 Mr Sloggem's reply of the same day, 29 January, stated:

The advice from Dr Fielder seems fine to me. There could be a problem with abraded skin providing a route of entry. Spleen and placenta could well have high titres, assuming the analogy with scrapie holds good. Sourcing abroad would seem the sensible thing to do. Some tissues may have higher titres earlier than brain tissue eg gut, hence these are best avoided from British sources. 10

8.44 Dr Jefferys, Dr Adams, Dr Raine and Dr Winship collectively minuted Mrs Shersby on 31 January 1990 expressing concerns about the proposed reply and suggesting a meeting between MED TEP and MCA 'to discuss overlapping areas of responsibility, before the reply to DTI is finalised'. They said that no detailed information had been provided on the affected cosmetic products, and therefore informed comment was not possible. They pointed out that the CSM/VPC guidelines 'were framed in relation to licensed medicinal products where the risk/benefit analysis has been established'. They also asked that the third paragraph be omitted as it would 'raise new concerns which cannot be scientifically answered.' 11

Return to top of page
February/March 1990

Return to top of page
Mr Roscoe advises the CTPA

8.45 The meeting between MED TEP and MCA suggested by Dr Jefferys, Dr Adams, Dr Raine and Dr Winship does not appear to have taken place. However, their concerns, and those of Dr Pickles, were addressed in the modifications to the draft set out by Mrs Shersby in a minute to Dr Singh. Mrs Shersby said:

Following discussions here, we are content that the draft letter will be reworded, as follows: -
Paragraph 1 - to be unchanged
Paragraph 2 - Reference to the use of cattle aged under 6 months is deleted.
Paragraph 3 - Will be replaced by the following: -
'We accept that the risk of transmission is very remote, but believe that it would be prudent to eliminate any risk from BSE, either by reformulating, so that the products do not contain any extracts of bovine offal, or if incorporation of bovine extracts is retained, material derived from cattle reared outside the UK, Eire and Channel Islands should be used.'
Should problems arise about stating Eire, then the alternative could be . . . 'cattle reared outside the UK and from countries known to be free from BSE.' As you are aware our preference is towards material from Australasia.
We are content that the briefing notes used will be those prepared by Dr Pickles.
We may reassess topical preparations in general and with specific relationship to human medicinal products before our next BSE Working Group meeting which is due to be held on 4 July 1990 at 2pm at Market Towers and will let you have an agenda and papers, in case you wish to send an observer along. 12

8.46 Dr Fielder's eventual advice to Mr Roscoe, sent on 1 February, was as follows:

I am replying to your request for advice on the safety of the use of extracts of bovine offal in certain cosmetics, such as skin products claimed to have 'anti-ageing' properties with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). As you are aware there are a number of cosmetic products on sale in the UK that contain small amounts of such extracts, primarily from spleen and thymus.
We accept that the risk of transmission is likely to be remote, but believe that it would be prudent to eliminate any risk by reformulating such products. Alternatively if the incorporation of bovine extracts is retained, material derived from cattle reared outside of the UK, Eire or the Channel Islands should be used.
We would be grateful if you would transmit these recommendations to industry via the Trade Association CTPA. 13

8.47 The letter enclosed a copy of the Southwood Report and the background briefing prepared by Dr Pickles headed 'Presence of Bovine Offals in Cosmetics and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy'. 14

8.48 Mr Roscoe immediately wrote to Miss Marion Kelly of the CTPA telling her of DH's recommendation and requesting that she ask members to follow it. He concluded, 'Please let me know if you have any trouble persuading [them] to do so.' 15

Return to top of page
The CTPA contacts its members

8.49 The CTPA contacted its members through two channels.

8.50 On 8 February 1990, it issued a circular to its Perfumery Working Group, which was made up of the CTPA members who marketed perfumery and premium skin-care products. 16 Miss Kelly explained to us that the products containing offal extracts would most probably be premium priced facial skin-care products. 17 The circular attached Mr Roscoe's letter of 1 February 1990.

8.51 The second, and more general, channel the CTPA used to alert its members was through the scientific section of its newsletter, known as the 'Blue Pages'. The March 1990 'Blue Pages' asked all members marketing products containing 'bovine extracts' to tell the CTPA secretariat by 30 March what type of raw materials they used (eg, tallow and gelatine), and in what type of product. 18

8.52 Miss Kelly told us that most of the members of the Perfumery Working Group who manufactured premium facial products did respond to the request for information. On the basis of their responses and the fact that these products were not manufactured in the UK, she said she was satisfied that none of the products concerned contained bovine offal sourced from UK cattle. Unfortunately, the CTPA no longer has its files containing the responses to the request to the general membership via the 'Blue Pages'. 19

Return to top of page
April/May 1990

Return to top of page
Dr Pickles drafts paper for SEAC

8.53 For the first meeting of SEAC held on 1 May 1990, Dr Pickles had drafted a paper entitled 'Routes of Possible Transmission of BSE to Man'. 20 In this draft she referred, among other matters, to the use of bovine spleen and thymus in cosmetics:

These products are said to have 'anti-ageing' properties and although supposedly administered only onto intact skin, clearly broken skin could be exposed also. Needless to say, there is no evidence of efficacy. These products are not covered by the Medicines Act. 21

8.54 She noted that the appropriate trade association had been advised, via DTI, that it would be prudent to exclude bovine tissue or source it from outside the UK, the Republic of Ireland or the Channel Islands. The paper asked whether the Committee was content with the line taken to date on cosmetics. 22

8.55 In a minute to Mr Lowson dated 23 April 1990, Mr Meldrum commented on Dr Pickles's draft. In relation to cosmetics he objected to the general proposition that bovine material be sourced outside the British Isles:

At this time there must be some possibility that BSE exists in other countries in either a clinical or sub-clinical form bearing in mind their own scrapie incidence and the trading patterns in cattle and meat and bone meal from the UK to such countries. An answer has to be found that takes cognizance of all these factors and does not simply classify the British Isles as an 'infected area'. On that basis the paper needs considerable expansion to be helpful to the Tyrrell Committee. 23

8.56 He suggested the paper be redrafted, then 'cleared with us' before being submitted to a later meeting of SEAC. 24

8.57 Upon receipt of this minute the next day, Mr Lowson faxed it to Dr Pickles, asking her by way of a handwritten note to discuss any revisions with Mr Meldrum. 25 In her reply, Dr Pickles interpreted Mr Meldrum's comments as an instruction to Mr Lowson not to accept her paper in its current form. She said that in the circumstances there was no alternative but to withdraw the paper from the agenda of the forthcoming SEAC meeting, adding by way of explanation: 26

. . . the line taken on cosmetics including sourcing from overseas was based on that given for licensed medicinal products by a group that included Drs Kimberlin, Watson and Will, as well as other MAFF officials. There is no question that the UK is an 'infected area': the only question is whether other countries should be included too. The Licensing Authority, quite reasonably in my view, feels they can only insist on sourcing in countries where there is no evidence of BSE and the veterinary service and reporting system is adequate to detect it were it present. Most manufacturers of mainline pharmaceuticals are not risking having to change sources yet again and so are looking to Australasia. If the CVO thinks he has enough evidence, say concerning the USA, to persuade the CSM, CDSM etc to advise more strongly against sourcing there too, he should present that evidence in a convincing form and in writing. I do not see this as a matter for our group, since there are statutory responsibilities under the Medicines Act. What we should do is ensure consistent advice is given for those borderline products (like these 'cosmetics' with medicinal claims) that currently fall outside that Act. 27

8.58 In early May Mr Meldrum wrote again to Mr Lowson. He explained that his remarks were based on concerns about reporting procedures in some countries and the question whether they could diagnose BSE. He further noted that, according to evidence presented at the fourth International Scientific Congress in Fur Animal Production, 'bovine-scrapie' might exist in the USA:

. . . I am only suggesting that more detail and background be provided for the Tyrrell Committee in order that they may come to a balanced view. 28

8.59 The minute was copied to Dr Pickles.

Return to top of page
July 1990

Return to top of page
The BSEWG considers topical products including cosmetics

8.60 While the withdrawal of Dr Pickles's paper meant that the approach taken on cosmetics was not formally considered by SEAC, three SEAC members, Dr Tyrrell, Dr Kimberlin and Dr Watson, attended a meeting of the CSM's BSEWG, which considered topical products. It appears that the presence of this item on the agenda can be traced back to a suggestion by Mrs Shersby the previous January when advising how to respond to Mr Roscoe's enquiry on BSE (see paragraph 8.45 above).

8.61 A paper entitled 'Topical Products - Cosmetics and Medicines', dated June 1990 was prepared by Dr Winship and tabled at this meeting. 29 The paper attached a copy of Dr Fielder's reply to Mr Roscoe of 1 February 1990. The minutes record the following:

10. Topical Products - Medicines and Cosmetics
10.1 Following a request from the Department of Trade and Industry for advice on the safety of the use of extracts of bovine offal in certain cosmetics, a reply was sent by Dr R J Fielder, Med TEH, Department of Health on 1 February following consultation with Med ISD and the MCA. It is recommended that the products should be reformulated or if the incorporation of bovine extracts is to be retained, material derived from cattle reared in BSE-free areas should be used.
10.2 Topical administration of licensed medicinal products containing bovine materials has already been discussed at the BSE Working Group Meeting in September 1989. They were not considered to be a cause for concern at that time and this position is unchanged.
10.3 In view of this more recent concern about the use of bovine offal in cosmetics, it was considered advisable to look into topical use in relation to medicinal products. Such use appears to be confined and the source of the material is Germany. No further action is currently required by the MCA in relation to licensed topical medicinal preparations. 30

8.62 The issue of bovine materials used by the cosmetics industry did not resurface again until March 1991 (see below).

Return to top of page
March to May 1991

Return to top of page
SEAC consideration of the use of bovine material in non-food preparations

8.63 On 7 March 1991 a meeting of SEAC was held. After considering a paper on the use of tallow, the Committee asked for a note on the use of bovine material in non-food preparations such as cosmetics. 31 In his list of action points arising out of the meeting Mr Lowson observed that SEAC had asked for a note on 'the use of bovine materials in cosmetics in particular' but suggested:

it might make sense to cover all the non-food uses that we can think of (harp strings, tennis rackets etc). I think that all that is required is a factual note about the range of uses, and quantities, together with an assessment of possible risk factors. 32

8.64 He suggested that this was a job for Dr Pickles. 33

8.65 Dr Pickles was unable to put together a paper before the next SEAC meeting on 10 May 1991 (see Chapter 9). The minutes of this meeting record that steps were to be taken to obtain from the cosmetics industry an indication of whether they used bovine material. 34 This task was allocated to Mr Tom Murray, 35 who had by then taken over from Dr Pickles as joint secretary to SEAC. Dr Pickles continued to attend as an observer.

Return to top of page
June 1991

Return to top of page
DH contacts the CTPA directly

8.66 Mr Murray evidently enlisted assistance from Mrs Diane Whyte, a Higher Executive Officer within HEF who reported to him. He asked her to 'make enquiries of the trade organisation representing the cosmetics industry into the use of bovine material'. 36 On 25 June 1991 she informed him that Dr Gott in HEF M had suggested Mr Ian Phillipson in the CTPA as the contact. Dr Gott had also faxed across copies of the correspondence that had taken place with DTI in February 1990. Mrs Whyte continued:

In Mr Phillipson's absence I spoke to his assistant Mrs Deborah Redborne. She has looked at their file on this subject and can find nothing further to the 1990 correspondence. However she confirmed that the DH advice on bovine material was issued to the cosmetic industry through an article in their trade journal written by Mr Phillipson.
I will speak to Mr Phillipson tomorrow when he returns to check the latest position. 37

8.67 On 26 June 1991, after speaking with Mr Phillipson, Mrs Whyte sent Mr Murray another minute. Mr Phillipson had told Mrs Whyte that following the receipt of the DTI letter in February 1990 advice was issued to the cosmetics industry through the CTPA Scientific News. Mrs Whyte said:

3. The advice was also discussed at the CTPA European Scientific Committee so international interests have been covered. A copy of the article in the scientific journal is attached for our reference. Mr Phillipson confirmed the advice stands and that the industry has acted on it.
4. The correspondence from DTI did not mention ovine material so this has probably not been covered (if used). 38
Return to top of page
SEAC recommends an update of DTI's advice

8.68 Two papers were put before the SEAC meeting on 28 June 1991, by Dr Pickles and Mr Murray. Dr Pickles's paper addressed the uses of bovine material in non-food products generally (see Chapter 9), while Mr Murray's dealt specifically with cosmetics. After summarising the action taken by the CTPA following the advice of February 1990, Mr Murray's paper stated:

3. The CTPA claim that their members have received the advice and acted upon it. However, the CTPA has no detailed information on the present use of bovine material, DH cannot therefore be sure all CTPA members have received and adhered to the guidance. Similarly, there is uncertainty about the practices of small scale producers who do not have CTPA membership.
4. No advice has been issued to manufacturers on the use of ovine material and the CTPA has no detailed information on its use. 39

8.69 The minutes of the meeting record that on consideration of the two papers the Committee thought that although in general no problems arose the following points should be pursued:

- investigate whether any specified bovine offals going for industrial use and hence exempt from sterilisation and staining regulations were likely to end up in products (e.g. cosmetics) which might come into contact with human tissues; and
- remind DTI that as BSE had now been found in other countries their guidance to cosmetic manufacturers should be updated in regard to scrutiny, and importation of prepared cosmetics. 40

Return to top of page
July/August 1991

8.70 In early July Mr Lowson circulated a note concerning follow-up to the SEAC meeting on 28 June. Copies of this went to Mr Murray and Dr Pickles. In relation to non-food uses of bovine material, he noted: 41

The Committee were concerned about a number of issues:
- to update the advice from DTI to the cosmetics industry to take account of the existence of BSE in other countries (can Mr Murray please pursue);
- to investigate whether contact lens care products are covered by CSM guidelines (I understand Dr Pickles is pursuing); and
- to find out whether any sbo's which are exempted from the sterilisation and staining regulations for industrial use might end up in products for human use. Can Mr Lawrence please investigate.

8.71 On 24 July 1991, by way of follow-up, Mr Murray asked Dr Pickles to review the previous advice to DTI and suggest amendments as necessary. He observed: 'Reference will have to be made to BSE in France and Switzerland and the ingredients from bovines from these countries.' 42

8.72 Dr Pickles replied to Mr Murray's request the next day. She agreed that the geographical aspects needed updating and observed that the background briefing sent to DTI with Dr Fielder's letter of 1 February 1990 was not appropriate in that form and not something she had intended to go to DTI in any case. She continued:

The Tyrrell committee remains concerned about excessive contact with specified offal or material derived from them. Apart from abattoir workers, this is the main potential loophole. It could be pointed out that there are potential concerns:
* for workers in the cosmetic industry who may be exposed frequently to these materials, especially if inoculation injuries might occur and
* those who by repeated application particularly to thinned, scarified or diseased skin might absorb material including infective agent that way, also
* there may still be some strange products administered by injection that are trying to evade the Medicines Act by calling themselves cosmetics. If any of those involve bovine ingredients, they need to comply with the CSM guidelines. 43

8.73 Dr Pickles also noted that the fundamental concerns were 'well described in previous papers/briefing etc' and were 'essentially unchanged from those expressed in the Southwood report'. She said that in addition to writing to DTI, DH should ask to be kept properly informed of any action that followed. It needed reassurance that the message had reached the right people. She questioned whether 'fringe' companies were members of trade associations, and, if not, whether information was reaching them, and whether DTI had accepted it was its responsibility to keep such manufacturers informed. 44

8.74 Mrs Whyte drafted a letter to Mr Roscoe along the lines suggested by Dr Pickles. 45 However, it does not appear that any letter was, in the event, sent to Mr Roscoe.

8.75 During August 1991 Mr Lawrence prepared the paper requested by SEAC about whether SBOs exempted from the Meat (Staining and Sterilisation) Regulations for industrial use might end up in products for human use. Evidently, Mr Lawrence consulted Mr Bradley, who had become involved in compiling the list of non-food preparations requested by SEAC in March (see Chapter 9). In a minute to Mr Lawrence dated 5 August 1991 Mr Bradley said:

I have the feeling we are far too remote from the industry to make meaningful comments. Contacts via DOH/DTI do not inspire me with confidence. I would advise we need to know what bovine materials are really used in cosmetics and for what purposes. We either need to send someone into the industry (as I did for tripe, casings and rennet) or have a closer contact via the trade association. I am not satisfied yet that the industry is 'in the clear' and it is us that may shoulder some blame if it is later found ladies are rubbing cow brain or placenta on to their faces. It may not be our job but if we have any responsibility we need to get at the facts. 46

8.76 Mr Lawrence's paper was tabled but not discussed at the tenth SEAC meeting on 6 September 1991 (see Chapter 9). 47 In relation to cosmetics the paper stated that placenta was used for its supposed anti-ageing properties, and gangliocides, spleen and thymus might also be used, but there was no firm knowledge on this. It noted that at the SEAC meeting of 28 June it had been agreed that DTI would be reminded that since BSE had been found in other countries, its guidance to cosmetics manufacturers needed to be updated. The paper concluded:

In view of the legislative controls and the guidance which has been issued to manufacturers of pharmaceuticals it is not considered that products derived from sbos will come into contact with human tissues. Guidance has also been issued in relation to cosmetic use and we have no reason to believe that the major manufacturers have not followed the advice given. However in order to obtain as definitive a picture as possible it is considered advisable to check with the trade association to see if this is the case and whether there are small companies who are not members and may not therefore be aware of the advice given. A further check could also be made through the abattoir owners as to the destination of by-products. 48

Return to top of page
October 1991

8.77 On 15 October 1991, Mrs Whyte sent a minute to Dr Wight, who had succeeded Dr Pickles as coordinator on BSE/CJD matters in DH:

Mr Murray asked me to copy to you our papers on the use of bovine material in cosmetics in connection with the attached article sent to us by John Maslin, MAFF. The article appeared in a recent Mail on Sunday supplement and states that 'sheep's placenta and cow's brain tissue are included in (cosmetic) treatment products as "fresh cells" and "biological extracts" '.
We have been looking at the use of bovine material in cosmetics and other non-food products, and the subject has also been discussed by the Tyrrell Committee. The Department issued advice to the cosmetics industry, via DTI, on the use of bovine material in cosmetics in February 1990. This advice suggested that the use of extracts of bovine offal should be discontinued. Alternatively material should be imported from cattle reared outside the UK, Eire and the Channel Islands.
Follow up enquiries of the Industry's Trade Association indicate that manufacturers were asked to check with their suppliers the origin of any bovine material used. However, there is no detailed information on the present use of bovine material and we cannot be sure that the DH advice has been widely received or adhered to. Also we do not know about small scale operators who are not members of the Trade Association.
When this was discussed by the Tyrrell Committee in June, it was agreed that the DH should consider its earlier advice to DTI with a view to reissuing it.
When you have had a chance to look at the background papers Mr Murray would like us to get together urgently to consider this further. Perhaps you can let me know if it is possible for us to meet sometime this week? I look forward to hearing from you. 49

8.78 On 31 October 1991, Dr Wight sent to Mr Murray what appears to be an early draft of the updated advice eventually sent to the CTPA in April the following year:

The Department of Health wishes to reinforce the advice given to the Cosmetics Industry in February 1990 (ref.)
It is possible that some ruminant-derived materials are being incorporated into cosmetics or beauty treatments which are then marketed as 'natural' products.
The particular materials that should not under any circumstances be used in the manufacture of cosmetics or beauty treatments are:
1. bovine (cattle) -derived offals, or proteins derived from these offals. These offals are: brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils, intestines (Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations)
2. ovine (sheep) -derived offals and ovine placenta.
In view of the current uncertainty about the incidence of infection with spongiform encephalopathy agents it is probably advisable that these recommendations apply to the above ruminant-derived materials of any country of origin. 50

8.79 A handwritten note (author unknown) at the bottom of the page states 'this could go in trade rag(s)'.

Return to top of page
November 1991

Return to top of page
Consideration of the SBO Regulations

8.80 In early November, when considering the draft SBO amendment regulations, Mr Murray raised a concern about cosmetics. On 6 November 1991, Mrs Whyte sent a minute to Dr Wight explaining Mr Murray's concerns. She referred to section 2(a)(ii)(b) of the draft regulations which stated that premises used for the manufacture of products other than food or animal feedstuff would be designated as excepted premises. She asked:

Do you know if they are covered by other regulations (ie CSM advice) and what about cosmetic manufacturers? . . . 51

8.81 Miss Jones (Meat Hygiene Division, MAFF) sent a minute seeking 'urgent advice' about DH concerns over the draft regulations from Mr Turner of the Legal Section. 52

8.82 Having heard back, Miss Jones wrote to Mr Murray on 25 November 1991: 53

Following discussions with Mr Baker and myself it emerged that you had three areas of concern in relation to the . . . Regulations . . .
Your first point related to the definition of 'excepted premises' (Regulation 2). You expressed concern that certain sectors of the cosmetics industry are still using specified bovine offal in the manufacture of their products and you wished to see the definition amended to exclude such premises. Indeed you would prefer to see the Regulations used as a vehicle for introducing a total prohibition on use of SBO in cosmetics and, perhaps, certain other non-food products. While I understand your concern over this issue, our legal advice is that the Food Safety Act 1990 (under which these Regulations are made) would not be an appropriate means of introducing such a ban. The Act is concerned solely with ensuring that food which reaches the consumer is safe to eat and could not therefore provide a satisfactory basis for action in relation to cosmetics or similar products. In light of this you may wish to consider whether there is other legislation available which would provide a more appropriate basis for taking such action.

8.83 Mr Murray replied on 9 December. He accepted her advice and added:

I have briefly discussed with Robert Lowson the need to control the non-food use of specified offal. He and Dr Tyrrell (Tyrrell Committee) are sympathetic to the suggestion. I will discuss further with Robert how we take forward such action. 54
<<Previous | Next>>
Return to top of page
1 IBD 1 tab 4 para. A1d

2 YB90/01.22/11.1

3 S471 Roscoe para. 24

4 YB90/1.26/18.1-18.3; YB90/1.00/5.1

5 YB90/1.00/5.1

6 Dr Singh's draft, but not Dr Fielder's final reply, advised that offal extracts could be used if from calves under 6 months old (YB90/2.1/7.1)

7 YB90/1.29/1.1

8 YB90/2.1/7.2-7.4

9 YB90/01.29/17.1

10 YB90/1.29/15.1

11 YB90/1.31/14.1

12 YB90/2.1/4.1

13 YB90/2.1/7.1

14 YB90/2.1/7.2-7.4

15 YB90/2.01/14.1

16 YB90/2.8/10.1

17 S407 Kelly para. 5

18 YB90/3.00/6.1

19 S407 Kelly paras 5, 6

20 YB90/4.12/1.1-1.4

21 YB90/4.12/1.3

22 YB90/4.12/1.3-1.4

23 YB90/4.23/1.1

24 YB90/4.23/1.1

25 YB90/4.23/2.1

26 YB90/4.24/3.1

27 YB90/4.24/3.1

28 YB90/5.2/15.1

29 YB90/6.0/18.1

30 YB90/7.4/1.6-1.7

31 YB91/3.7/3.1-3.2

32 YB91/3.7/3.1-3.2

33 YB91/3.7/3.1-3.2

34 YB91/5.10/9.8

35 YB91/5.13/3.1

36 YB91/6.25/7.1

37 YB91/6.25/7.1

38 YB91/06.26/3.1

39 YB91/6.00/5.1

40 YB91/6.28/2.7

41 YB91/7.3/3.1-3.2

42 YB91/7.24/3.1

43 YB91/7.25/3.1

44 YB91/7.25/3.1

45 YB91/8.00/3.1-3.6

46 YB91/8.5/1.1

47 SEAC 10/13

48 SEAC 10/13 para. 7

49 YB91/10.15/2.1

50 YB91/10.31/9.1

51 YB91/11.06/6.1

52 YB91/11.13/2.1

53 YB91/11.25/2.1

54 YB91/12.09/3.1

Return to top of page

© Crown Copyright 2000. Legal notice.
Any part of this report may be reproduced subject to acknowledgement.
The Inquiry Report | Findings & conclusions | Download report as PDF | Evidence | Contact details | Order a copy | Glossary | Chronology | Who's who | Key to footnotes | Help | Search