Research conducted by the Food Standards Agency has found that the majority of people oppose European Union (EU) proposals to relax the ban on using processed animal protein (PAP) in livestock feed for fish, chicken and pigs.

The Agency said its Board will be discussing the EU proposal on Wednesday 7th September. The FSA commissioned the research in response to European Commission proposals that could see PAP used in UK livestock feed for the first time since 2001 (1996 in the case of pig protein) to gauge the public’s attitude towards a change in the current ban. image expired

The ban was introduced when links were drawn between the BSE outbreak and PAP fed to ruminants. This would be forbidden under new laws, as would cannibalism. Nevertheless, it would appear the memories of the crisis are still too fresh for many. Responding to the EC’s proposals in June, French agriculture minister Bruno LeMarie publicly stated he would resist the reauthorisation of PAP during his time in office.

However, exponents of the feed are toting it as a 'greener' option, which solves the issue of rising feed costs; feed is currently largely made up of grains grown in the USA and Brazil, and promotes food security and tracability. Although PAP could be rolled out as early as next year, research conducted within the EU all shows consumers prefer to err on the side of caution, and have yet to embrace news of the reintroduction.

The FSA said its results showed that, having considered the risks and potential benefits of the proposals to relax the ban on pig and poultry feed, most of the participants involved in the research remained against changes to the current restrictions.

After receiving detailed information about the European Commission’s proposals, six out of the eight focus groups involved supported a continuation of the ban, with one group remaining 'neutral' and only one group 'for' relaxing the ban. The main reasons for opposing a relaxation of the ban were concerns about health risks, a lack of scientific knowledge about how diseases like BSE spread and concern about whether there were any benefits to the consumer.

While respondents discussed the potential economic and environmental benefits of the proposals, such as less wastage of meat by-products and a reduction in carbon emissions from importing soya from abroad, they felt these were outweighed by the risk potential and that relaxing the ban would therefore be a backwards step.