Dear Mr. Kinnock,
Thank you for your letter of 13 February.
You are clearly under a misapprehension about the action we are taking on salmonella—despite the extensive publicity this has received—and I am glad of the opportunity to set the record straight.
You dispute my comment about the newness of the Salmonella enteritidis PT4 problem. The fact is that there were only 392 cases of Salmonella enteritidis PT4 in humans in 1981, and there were 12,553 in 1988. It is therefore entirely reasonable to describe this as a new problem. It was not until late 1987 that it became clear that there was a problem and not until the summer of 1988 that the nature of the problem became sufficiently clear to enable us to decide on the appropriate action. Salmonella is an international problem too. In their 1988 report, the World Health Organisation Expert Committee said:
“There is no other zoonosis as complex in its epidemiology and control as salmonellosis. Epidemiological patterns differ greatly between geographical areas depending on climate, population density, land use, farming practices, food harvesting and processing technologies, and consumer habits. Moreover, the biology of salmonella serovars differ so widely that discussions on salmonellosis, salmonella [end p1] infections, or salmonella contamination are inevitably complex.”
Contrary to the implication in your third paragraph, the UK's monitoring system for salmonella is not less sophisticated than the American system. Indeed until 1988 the American Public Health Service was unable to identify individual phage types of Salmonella enteritidis. Our own Public Health Laboratory Service has in fact been helping the US authorities in the investigation of their enteritidis problem.
I do not agree that the last Labour Government's proposals for a bureaucratic licensing system for protein processing plants could have avoided, or even significantly mitigated, the salmonella problem. The level of salmonella contamination in protein processing plants has been declining in recent years (and incidentally there have been only two isolations of Salmonella enteritidis in domestically produced animal protein since 1982). In order to accelerate this improvement in bacteriological standards, we have introduced new arrangements which enable MAFF veterinary staff to prevent contaminated material being used as an animal feed without further processing. This will be a much more effective control than any licensing system based on complicated constructional standards. Unlike the Labour Government's proposals, our scheme goes straight to the root of the problem, and at the same time, avoids imposing unnecessary burdens on the industry.
I am afraid you have completely misunderstood what has happened regarding the work on competitive exclusion at the Food Research Institute in Bristol. The point is that this work has reached the stage where further development could only be done effectively by the industry itself. This is because the problems which remain to be resolved are problems of application in a commercial context. It is known that the technique has considerable merit if applied by skilled scientific staff treating each bird individually with great [end p2] care; what has now to be established is whether it can be made to work in the very different conditions of a commercial poultry unit. It is not therefore the case that further significant progress could have been made by ploughing more Government money into the work.
You suggest that we have stopped the work ‘before the point where any commercial producer can reasonably be expected to sustain the essential further development’. In fact the technique is already being applied on a trial basis by at least two British companies. Moreover, an overseas company—the company which provided the material for the most recent Bristol trials—has applied for an import licence. This was confirmed by the Government's Chief Veterinary Officer when he gave evidence to the Agriculture Select Committee recently.
I must refute totally your suggestion that ‘neither the resources nor the determination are yet being committed’ to deal with the salmonella problem. John MacGregor has announced a well thought out coherent package of measures including no less than 17 separate elements for combating salmonella in poultry. This adds up to a programme which is more comprehensive than any put forward elsewhere in the world. We are implementing this programme with the utmost vigour.
I am surprised that you appear to consider it inappropriate to seek expertise in an area, such as microbiological food safety, to complement the Government's own work in this sphere. You will have seen from the announcement made by Kenneth Clarke that the Committee on the Microbiological Aspects of Food will have, in addition to an independent chairman, outside experts including scientists, and people experienced in food production, retailing and catering. We will be referring a number of issues to it. But it will also be able to initiate its own investigations and its reports will be published. [end p3]
The Government has enabled the consumer to have a wider choice of food at all price ranges than ever before, and we have taken active steps to ensure that the consumer has the information to choose food to meet their personal preferences and life-style. Your sincerely Margaret Thatcher