|
Back to TSE Homepage
27 March 2003
2002 Quinquennial Review of the Spongiform Encephalopathy
Advisory Committee (SEAC)
www.land-care.org.uk
(Filed 27 March 2003)
On 17 March 2003 the SEAC review team published
a report of SEAC. The report can be downloaded by clicking the following
link:
A
Report of the 2002 Quinquennial Review of SEAC (PDF)
Among the 23 points raised in the Executive Summary
were the following three, which Land-Care considers to be of particular
relevance:
- SEAC spends too much time on low-level or relatively
minor questions at the expense of going in depth into fundamental
scientific issues of TSEs. And the arrangements for forward work
planning are relatively weak. This should be addressed.
(Chapter 3, para. 2)
- SEAC should have more precise terms of reference,
which better focus the role of the Committee towards the tasks
that it is required to perform: i.e. advising on risk assessment,
new scientific discoveries and important general principles. This
should help to ensure that advice sought from SEAC is more effectively
targeted to its areas of expertise. (Chapter 3, para. 18)
- TSE research and testing are now big business.
Members of SEAC (including sub-group members and, where appropriate,
technical advisers and other experts who assist the Committee
in relation to specific issues) must be rigorous in respect of
declaring their interests. (Chapter 8, para. 14)
Land-Care Editorial Comment
It is disappointing to note that with all the
expertise and funding that has been devoted to the study of TSE’s,
that SEAC or some other UK body was not able to cooperate with commercial
firms to produce a test kit for detection of BSE in postmortem cattle
for routine use. This is indeed big business as described in our
recent article (1).
The only UK contender for such a lucrative contract
was quite rightly excluded from the short list of four, as the quality
of their test was patently not good enough. Three commercial companies
in Europe outwith the UK were successful (2).
The UK has suffered from BSE the most, and now
has to additionally suffer by having to pay others for commercial
kits to diagnose it. Surely SEAC could have been more productive
in this area.
References
1. Irvine, James
(2003). Where has UK Biotechnology gone?
(Filed 21 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
2. Moynagh J.
& Schimmel, H. (1999). Tests for BSE evaluated. Nature, 400:
105. (Download
PDF). Reproduced with permission.
Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care
Post-mortem Tests for BSE in Cattle: Further Correspondence with
Prof Wilesmith.
(Filed 24 March 2003, www.land-caare.org.uk,
click here
to view).
Irvine, James (2003). The Food Standards Agency reviews the OTMS
rule - are they going to scrap it?
(Filed 12 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click here to view).
Irvine, James (2003). Food Standards Agency Review of OTMS: a follow
up.
(Filed 12 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click here to view).
www.land-care.org.uk
|
