Meat firm seeks to overturn BSE ban
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.CHARLES ARTHUR
Science Correspondent
A meat processing company is challenging the Government's ban on the use of cows' spines in mechanically recovered meat, claiming it is unlawful.
If Great Harwood Food Products, of Great Harwood in Lancashire, wins the case, food companies could once more include ground-up cattle bones in meat products.
This may renew fears that mad cow disease, or BSE, could be transmitted to humans.
The ban on the use of cows' brains, skulls and spines in mechanically recovered meat was introduced last November, in the wake of scares that BSE- infected tissue could pass into food. At the time, the agriculture minister Douglas Hogg said the measure was "designed to protect public health from any remote theoretical risk from BSE".
Great Harwood Food Products, which produces mechanically removed meat for burgers, pies, sausages, soups and other products, says the new controls pose a serious threat to its business. It describes the ban as "disproportionate, irrational and unreasonable" and therefore unlawful under both domestic and European law.
The company is seeking a judicial review, arguing that ministers were trespassing on an area exclusively covered by EU rules. No date has yet been set for the hearing.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments