Fears of public alarm over mad cow disease preoccupied Government officials at the time Ministers were first informed of the problem, the BSE inquiry heard yesterday.
A confidential memo to a Junior Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture in July 1987 warned that ill-informed publicity could lead to ''hysterical demands for immediate draconian Government measures''.
The memo from the head of the ministry's Animal Health Division, J C Suich, and addressed to the then parliamentary secretary Donald Thompson, added: ''This in turn could alarm other countries and lead them to prohibit imports of cattle, semen and embryos from this country.''
The note said officials thought the best plan was to acknowledge the existence of BSE and emphasise that it was being thoroughly investigated.
Until more was known about the disease, ''no action by MAFF is recommended beyond attempting to ensure that publicity is well-informed and not unduly alarmist'' said the memo, which was submitted to the inquiry.
Ministers were first informed of the existence of BSE a short time earlier, on June 5 1987, in a note to Mr Thompson from the Chief Veterinary Officer Howard Rees, the inquiry sitting in Lambeth, south London, was told.
This was about seven months after BSE was identified as a disease in its own right by scientists.
Sir Michael Franklin, Permanent Secretary at MAFF until October 1987, learned of the disease at the same time as the parliamentary secretary. Giving evidence yesterday, he defended the actions of officials in light of what was known at the time.
Sir Michael told the inquiry: ''I think it is very understandable that when you have a new phenomenon about which you know so little there is a danger that it can be misunderstood and misinterp-reted. It would be the concern of the CVO not to arouse undue alarm and concern. I think it was an understandable concern. It was not the only one or the primary one.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article