May 22, 2003 Panorama BBC by Alice Garlick & Irene Blake

Theo Hehprink (Manager, Prowico): That is what I meant with our special techniques (indistinct) you can take off the DNA.

BP: So when the FSA or whoever in the UK tests it?

TH: Negative, negative. Professor Tim Lang (City University, London): If you can't detect it you've got the perfect heist. This is the perfect crime and it's not even a crime.

BP: This is the dream of food unspoiled, untouched, fresh from the farm. Not anymore. Chicken is a billion-pound industry. It's cheap, it's tempting and it's everywhere. It's the most popular meat on our plates by far. Pulverised into nuggets or smothered in sauce we might not always know what exactly is in it but still we want more and we want it cheap. That means big money, big vested interests and even bigger secrets to protect. TL: The meat industry in both senses of the word is a dirty business. It's a very mucky business but it's also a very big business and there are a lot of careers, a lot of big money at stake here. People are right I think to feel threatened; this is a very, very nasty business when you go to the underbelly.

BP: To get inside the industry Panorama needed help. We got it from a man who's been on the chicken run for years. He told us what some processors put in their chicken and passed on a rumour that a way had been found of fooling the scientists, of hiding what exactly they're putting into our food. Our insider felt his livelihood was under threat so we've used an actor to speak his words. Industry Insider (spoken by actor): It's a tough business and there's stuff going on the public know nothing about. If I can help you I'll try but very few people would dare stand up against the main players and expose their practices. A lone voice against a multi-million pound industry: you could lose everything you've worked for all your life. I don't say this lightly, it's an outrage, but as a lone individual I can't afford to risk the safety of my family.

BP: For Panorama there was only way in. If we were to explore the industry's darker corners we'd have to set up shop. So we did. First, plush offices at an impressive address in the city. Next, a name for our firm: Pan Euro Ventures. We said we were keen to invest money in a chicken processing plant but before we ventured into the business we'd have to get to know it. (On telephone) The company is Pan Euro Ventures and I'm trying to find out how you're getting on with arranging that factory visit for us. We came up with a website, phone and fax lines and plenty of bluff. Pan Euro Ventures was ready to go. The trail started here with the list of companies named and shamed more than once by food watchdogs in the UK and Ireland. They were nearly all based in Holland. Some sold chicken that contained less meat and more water than they claimed; some had used animal based additives, their chicken proved positive for beef DNA or for pork. The UK Food Standards Agency, on assurances from the Dutch, now says the problem's been stamped out. Our industry insider wasn't so sure. Industry Insider (spoken by actor): The FSA seem to think it's been sorted but the UK's been the dumping ground for this product for years. I really don't think it's stopped. Why would it? There's just too much money at stake here.

BP: So who's right? 5 AM and Anna, a Dutch journalist, is going undercover for Panorama. She'd approached a few of the plants named and shamed by the watchdogs. Slegtenhorst, a firm near Rotterdam, took her on. She'd been warned to expect a world of tight profit margins, low pay and long hours. Anna (Dutch Journalist): We drove all around Rotterdam to pick up co-workers. Most of them are just immigrants, a lot of people from Africa, Romania, South America. Nobody works here is, is Dutch. If you're Dutch you're one of the bosses and you're probably related to the family. You arrive at the factory at six fifteen and you're supposed to start at seven.

BP: At the Slegtenhorst plant Anna, not her real name, is put to work on the production line. For the next few weeks she'll secretly record sights the industry would rather we didn't see. These are chicken fillets. They'll be pounded with water in huge drums until they're bloated and heavy.

Anna: These are the two tumblers they have there. They just put, put the chicken in together with the water and the additives and then tumbles for an hour, one and a half. When it comes out, all gooey and slimy like chicken soup really, I scoop it up and put it in the bags. They really don't want to tell you exactly what's in it.

BP: Ninety-five per cent of the frozen chicken made in this plant is sold in the UK. Next on our list: T Lelie, one of the big five firms in Holland and a major exporter to Britain, their chicken had tested positive for beef DNA more than once. That night it was off to Amsterdam to meet a man who might help us investigate what they're doing now. After dozens of phone calls he's finally been offered shifts at T Lelie. He wants to be known only as Nicco. He's worried. To cover his tracks he's already had to give them a false ID number.

Nicco: I don't want them to know who I am so it's, it, it's going to be very hard keeping up the cover because I, I gave them this false Social Security number and they found out already so I have to make up any excuse to give, to keep working there.

BP: We wanted Nicco to find what exactly Lelie adds to their chicken and at their huge plant on the outskirts of Amsterdam there's plenty to sell. Here they process two hundred tonnes of frozen chicken a week. Nicco's first job is to stack boxes ready for export to the UK. And this is where they're headed: Rotterdam docks. Every year from here and ports all over Holland hundreds of millions of pounds worth of chicken is exported to their number one customer: the UK. It's the early hours and the first of the overnight ferries from Rotterdam are docking in Hull. Last year alone sixty thousand tonnes of frozen chicken from Holland, much of it processed, came flooding into ports all over the country. A long time in the industry our insider knows what some Dutch firms do to chicken, he's recently visited Holland himself. Industry Insider (spoken by actor): The list of companies taking this product in the UK was astonishing. I saw lists on office walls against huge quantities on order. I just couldn't quite get my head round the volumes involved or that it all just seemed to be geared to the UK. I mean we're the laughing stock of Europe and there's so much coming into the country that there's every possibility it's in school dinners, hospitals, sandwich bars, cafes and restaurants in every town in the country.

BP: But it's cheap, it's in demand and it's still pouring in. Mr Chu's China Palace a stone's throw from Hull docks claims to be the largest Chinese Restaurant in the UK. It's a big favourite with the local MP. John Prescott is a regular and has brought a few of his closest friends along too. Customers have complained about Dutch frozen chicken in the past, so have the chefs. We brought this box from T Lelie, the firm where Nicco is working undercover. So what do you think?

Jack Chu (Manager, Mr Chu's Chicken Palace): It sort of feel really soft is it, like too much water.

BP: Can you tell straight away?

JC: Of course. You can, you can feel it too heavy and at the end very, very soft.

BP: There's thirty per cent added water in this chicken from Lelie. In unprocessed frozen chicken it's more like four per cent. What's the difference between that chicken and the quality chicken that you do use?

JC: That piece chicken you can put it there and compare it. That's absolutely different is it?

BP: The colour's completely different.

JC: The colour completely different and it's solid. Look, it feels solid. Look, you can feel this.

BP: Well this just gives way under your fingers doesn't it?

JC: Absolutely.

BP: So what is this like when you slice it?

JC: You can have a look and think, see what you think.

BP: That's solid. You can feel the fibres too.

JC: Yeah, you can feel the fibres on it. Yeah, that's right.

BP: And compared to the other ones?

JC: And then compared to this one, you can smooth it and then like jellyfish, all soft.

BP: On a busy night Mr Chu and his team cook for five hundred customers. He says he has little time to read small labels and even smaller print. How much do you know about this chicken and where it comes from and what they do to it?

JC: Well when we order chicken we only say we want the best chickens. But when they bring to us we don't know at all. We, once we discovered to see the label but who knows what's inside?

BP: And what's inside is exactly what Panorama wanted to know. We'd been out buying ten kilogram boxes of frozen chicken fillets imported from Holland. From Smithfield in London to warehouses and suppliers in Bristol, Manchester, Swindon we were hard pressed to find frozen chicken that wasn't Dutch.

Anonymous Buyer: Hello, a box of frozen chicken, a ten kilogram box. Great, that's the one, that's the one I want. Thank you. So is this, is this good?

First Chicken Seller: Not too bad

Anonymous Buyer: How much?

Second Chicken Seller: Two sixty a kilo which is about, about one eighteen a pound. You know that chicken burger they do?

Anonymous Buyer: Right, okay.

First Chicken Seller: It's what they use. That's good gear

Third Chicken Seller: Probably we sell thousands of these every week. We haven't had a problem at all.

BP: How much of this would you sell? Fourth Chicken Seller: Well you often have takeaway restaurants they are like buying ten a week. Anonymous Buyer: Do you sell to lots of restaurants then? Fifth Chicken Seller: Yeah we sell probably eighty boxes a day of it.

BP: We bought a box from food distributors, Brake Brothers, too. They supply schools, hospitals and canteens countrywide. In all Panorama bought seventeen boxes of frozen chicken fillets. But what would we find on supermarket shelves if we did a spot check on nuggets and snacks? We bought twenty-seven samples to test. Wearing gloves to avoid contamination we packed and sealed them in dry ice ready to be sent to the Public Analyst's laboratory in Manchester. They were going to check how much meat and added water was in each fillet. The results would take time. Anna was still working undercover in Slegtenhorst. She'd already seen the tumblers at work, the huge machines that force water and additives into the fillets. But tumbling isn't the only way of spinning out profit from chicken. The industry has a more efficient, more brutal way of doing it. You inject the water straight into the meat. We'd been told T Lelie had two very busy injection machines at their huge processing plant. That night in Amsterdam we met up with Nicco, undercover in Lelie for over a week he'd seen the injectors in action.

Nicco: You can see a lot of tubes go in and these tubes lead to long needles, very thin needles, and they inject into the (indistinct).

BP: So do you know what goes through the pipes into the needles and into the chicken?

Nicco: No, I couldn't see that. There is a storage and mixing room on the left-hand side here and you see two big kettles and there's eight fluids being mixed there and through pipes it'll go to the injection machine.

BP: What does the chicken look like when it comes out the other end?

Nicco: It's very wet; it's really dripping wet and there are sometimes blisters like this on it. The fluid is rather like where you've got a blister when you burn yourself; it's the colour and the same substance like that. It's yellow and thick and it's all over it and if you push one of those blisters it will just squirt out all the way.

BP: But bulking up chicken with water and additives is not illegal. If it's on the label on the box it's not a con. Professor Tim Lang: The illegality of this technique or the legality of it is almost beside the point. It's trying to sell you water and it's making more profits for them. Do you feel okay about that? I don't.

BP: Paris and the largest food fare in Europe's in town. Panorama was there as our cover company Pan Euro Ventures. Our story was this: we wanted to place an order for fifty tonnes a week of frozen chicken and we wanted it cheap. The salesman from one Dutch company, Kappers, was happy to talk cheap chicken. Do you work with, mostly with Dutch companies who further process stuff coming in from Thailand and Brazil or what? Salesman (Kappers): Well we are, we are, we are direct importers and what we do there is, basically, get product in, very nice looking product without inner fillet from Thailand. Add some water and it, well, the more water we add, the better the price gets. And the price is a lot better, of course, cos yeah. Water costs less than chicken. It's obvious.

BP: So it's obvious: more water, more profit. Back at the Public Analyst's laboratory in Manchester the water content results were in. First up was Kappers. Salesman (Kappers): Water costs less than chicken. It's obvious.

BP: Their salesman in Paris was right. The label on the chicken fillet sold by his firm said thirty per cent added water. In the sample we tested it was more like forty per cent. Kappers told us they monitor water content levels regularly and are convinced that on average their labels are correct. But there was worse to come. Anna's plant, Slegtenhorst, said there was thirty per cent added water in their fillet. Our test found a remarkable forty-nine per cent. Slegtenhorst wouldn't comment. Jozef Hassan, another Dutch firm. The label had come off the Hassan box we were sold so we'll never know how much water it claimed had been added but the fillet tested was just half meat. Doctor Tim Lobstein (Director, 'The Food Commission'): There's always going to be a small amount of water in any meat you buy but when you deliberately pump extra water into that meat you're creating a deception on the consumer. You're creating really a fraud and when it gets as high as something like fifty per cent that's just extraordinary. Fifty per cent of a product being water, that is a real fraud and really deserves criminal prosecution.

BP: It might feel like fraud but it's not as long as the label is accurate. The Food Standards Agency is the UK's food watchdog. When the Agency first tested Dutch chicken and found much more water than the labels claimed it asked officials in Holland to investigate.

David Statham (Food Standards Director of Enforcement and Standards): The Dutch authorities are obviously responsible for companies that operate within their, their area. They needed to find out why these products were there when they shouldn't be, why the companies weren't labelling the products as they should have been.

BP: So was it a labelling issue as far as you were concerned?

DS: It was a labelling and a composition issue. It's very much a case of this product is not illegal as such, it is illegal if it's not labelled so that people know what they're buying.

BP: In other words, get it right on the label and you can add as much water as you like. The real puzzle now was what keeps the water in the chicken. It was back to Holland. First stop Rotterdam. Anna was still working nearby at the Slegtenhorst plant. She'd seen sacks of powder added to the water but what was in the mysterious additive mix? Did you ask anybody what's in the powder?

Anna: Yes I did but they just keep telling you water and mix, you know, just additives and stuff. And if you keep asking they just don't want to talk about it. I asked one of the boys who was working there, "What is in it, in the water?" Boy: It's mix. I don't know how much. I don't understand. Salt, yes? And this.

BP: This is a list of E numbers, flavouring and carbohydrates. No help there.

Anna: One of them actually walked up to one of the bosses, asked him what's exactly in the mix and the guy just said, "Mix period. Just don't keep asking anymore."

BP: So the bosses weren't particularly keen to tell you.

Anna: No, no, not really.

BP: We knew watchdogs in the UK and Ireland had found beef and pork DNA in Dutch chicken as long as eighteen months ago. It came from the protein powder they add to chicken to hold in water. Over a year later had no one stopped them? We asked the Manchester laboratory to tell us. They test first for the level of something called hydroxyproline. A high level tells you that animal proteins may have been added.

Doctor Andrew Smith (Public Analyst, Cassella GMSS): We found a high level of added water in, in quite a few of the samples but also we found high levels of hydroxyproline which is a marker for collagen.

BP: Collagen is made of protein. You find it in animal hides, gristle and bone. Treated and made into a powder it swells up when water is added to it. If there was additional collagen in the chicken then which animal was it from? The answer we hoped was in Dublin, home to one of the world's cutting edge labs in the field of DNA species detection. Used by governments and big companies the specialist unit at the city's Trinity College is ahead of the game. If our samples did contain foreign DNA then it would show up in tests at IdentiGEN. Their rules and procedures are strict. They have to be. Contamination must be ruled out. Before it's analysed every sample is cleaned with special chemicals.

Doctor Ronan Loftus (Director, IdentiGEN): We slice it with disposable blades. We dispose of that blade. We then cut inside the centre of the chicken with a second blade. We dispose of that blade and that sample and we then go in a third time to collect a meat sample from right in the centre of the fillet that hasn't been in contact with the surface.

BP: IdentiGEN take two samples from every fillet and test those twice. That's four results for each fillet.

RL: We've a very conservative approach in our interpretation of the data. We require a positive band to be in all of these four analytical samples. Failing that we don't consider the sample as positive.

BP: So all four have to prove positive before you'll report a positive?

RL: That's correct.

BP: So what would they find? They tested twelve fillets of Dutch frozen chicken. IdentiGEN found beef DNA in half of them. A fillet from Slegtenhorst where Anna worked proved positive. Slegtenhorst has since told Panorama they don't use hydrolysed proteins let alone beef proteins. They blamed contamination. There was beef DNA in two fillets from T Lelie, Nicco's employers. They do use proteins but insist they're made from chicken. Lelie told us their own tests had proved negative. A fillet from Dutch firm, Jozef Hassan, contained not just beef DNA but pork too. The label said the product was Halal suitable for Muslims who for religious reasons choose not to eat pork. Hassan deny they use animal proteins. Again they say tests they carried out and independent tests were all negative. Does the Agency object to the practice of putting beef and pork proteins into chicken or does it just object to it if it's not on the label?

David Statham (FSA): The legal position is that it is legal to do this providing you tell people. Now quite clearly if this is happening and is not, the label doesn't tell people what they're eating then that's totally unacceptable, particularly if that might be something that is abhorrent to people from religious or ethical grounds so ...

BP: If it's on the label it's acceptable?

DS: If it's on the label it is legal. Professor Tim Lang: My response to the Food Standards Agency saying this is just a matter for labelling is pull the other one. I mean, how naÑve can you get? This isn't what we want the FSA to do. We expect the FSA to not just say put the information on a label but to sort it out please.

BP: Last month your chairman made a speech talking about the FSA's priorities and one of those was to make sure labels are honest, informative and useful. Those were his words. This is a copy of a label that came from a box of Dutch frozen chicken fillets. Do you find it informative? What would you expect to be eating if you'd read that on a label?

David Statham: I, clearly, you know, I, I don't know the circumstances in relation to the, the product that is being described here but what the label here says is this a, this is chicken. It is chicken with hydrolysed protein added with some water and it is chicken that is Halal. Whether it meets the requirements of the law it would be difficult to say.

BP: As it happens the chicken did have beef DNA in it. But all Dutch processors have to list on the label is hydrolysed protein. They don't have to tell you which animal it's from. So what about this one? What would you expect to be eating if you'd read that label? The label is within the law. It mentioned hydrolysed proteins. So what animal would you expect to be eating?

DS: The, the label may or may not be within the law. I'm, I, clearly I don't know what the, the nature of the substance was that was, of the chicken that was analysed. But, again, yes, the, this should be chicken.

BP: The truth is you don't know do you, having read those labels, what might be in those chicken fillets?

DS: Well if they are legal labels you do. If they are illegal then no, quite right, you don't.

BP: But there is no legal requirement to say where your hydrolysed protein comes from at this point is there?

DS: Oh yes, there's still a requirement if there is added beef or, or pork or anything of that sort. That is still a requirement in the ingredients' list.

BP: The Food Standards Agency Director of Enforcement is wrong. As the law stands there's no such requirement. When you're shopping the only clue on the label are the words hydrolysed proteins and those could come from beef or pork or chicken. Tim Lobstein (Director of 'The Food Commission'): The FSA was set up to increase consumer confidence in the food supply. Unless the FSA gets its teeth into this matter should I say, unless they really tackle this seriously they're going to lose the confidence that they're hoping to create.

BP: Industry insiders point a finger too. The FSA was set up by New Labour with an annual budget of over a hundred and thirty million pounds to fight the consumers' corner. Now critics say it's shying away from real action. Industry insider (actor's voice): What planet are they living on? Chicken should be chicken, it's not about labelling it's about greed and profit and honesty and this stuff is so cheap. The pressure's really on processors over here to use it.

BP: So could you be eating it? On his farm in Somerset one former poultry processor warns that if you shop in supermarkets then yes you could. Until a few months ago John Riddell part owned and ran a chicken processing plant.

John Riddell (Former Chicken Processor): Our supermarkets are stuffed full with imported product from countries where they say they have traceability but we know that they don't. Those chicken are sat on the shelf right beside my chicken and how can the house wife tell which is which?

BP: Only now he's no longer involved in processing is John Riddell prepared to reveal the pressure supermarkets put on suppliers to keep prices down?

JR: I know it because I've actually worked with supermarket buyers when I was involved in a processing plant, it's quite simple we want your Grade A product we'll pay the market price for that but if you want the other shelves you jolly well compete with foreign prices. If you can't, import the stuff into your processing plant, reprocess it and sell it as your own.

BP: Do they say so explicitly?

JR: Absolutely explicitly. We all know what's happening, we can't go public with it or processors can't go public with it because you have a working relationship with these people, you can't blow the gaff as it were and then expect the next day to trade with them.

BP: So is he right? What would our tests find? Panorama tested thirteen chicken meals many of them aimed at children from all the big supermarkets. Extract from Advert: Sainsbury's Blue Parrot Caf­ range, over fifty new products to help kids eat more healthily.

BP: Of four packs of Sainsbury's Blue Parrot Caf­ Chicken Nuggets we bought three proved positive for beef DNA, one for pork too. The box says Sainsbury's UK processors use chicken from the UK, Germany and Holland. Advertiser: Sainsbury's making life taste better.

BP: Sainsbury's told us the meat in our Blue Parrot Caf­ Chicken Nuggets is a hundred per cent chicken sourced from approved suppliers. We've done our own independent tests and found no pork or beef DNA. They said the beef DNA in Panorama's tests could have come from milk protein and the pork from laboratory contamination. They did confirm the nuggets we bought could have been produced from Dutch chicken. The box of Chinese chicken fillets from Brake Brothers turned out to be from Slegtenhorst, Anna's plant. Our tests found beef DNA in it. Brake said their tests didn't but they did find excessive water content. They said they didn't sell much of it but have now withdrawn it from sale, issued a recall notice and collected all the boxes they could find.

Tim Lobstein: If you are, through religious or any ethical reason, not wanting to eat either beef or pork then finding that you are eating it without having any label, without being told in advance that you had a choice about the matter is much like me or you eating dog or cat. It's, it's appalling, it's horrific to be eating something you did not wish to eat.

BP: But with so much Dutch frozen chicken flooding into the country why weren't more of our tests proving positive? Back in Holland we were about to uncover a clue that would point us to a possible answer. A secret, proof that some in the industry are way ahead of the regulators and their tests. The trail started with a name we'd spotted here at a Slegtenhorst plant. Anna had been able to get into the store room and showed us what she saw, stacks of boxes filled with powder.

Anna: I managed to sneak in there a couple of times. I wasn't allowed, it said authorised personnel only and of course I wasn't.

BP: What happened when you were caught because you were once weren't you?

Anna: Yeah a girl saw me and I just told her I was lost but she didn't really believe me but I had my lunch with me and she just thought I was a little silly.

BP: The coast clear she slipped back in. There Anna and her camera spotted a name, Surplus. Anna: This (indistinct) one and it says Surplus 601 supplement for Surplus 600 and how you're supposed to mix it but it doesn't really say what's in it.

BP: So the words beef, pork, chicken ...

Anna: No, no, no they're ...

BP: ... didn't appear anywhere?

Anna: ... no they're not on. It says export only that's it.

BP: Our interest was in the name Surplus. We'd seen it in other plants so who or what was Surplus? Back in London we tracked Surplus down. It's a Dutch food additive firm. Under the guise of Pan Euro Ventures, Panorama's cover company, we rang them and said we needed advice on additives for the poultry industry. The man from Surplus was keen to talk. Another trip to Amsterdam and it was time to set up a meeting with Will de Koosta. Hello Will it's Betsan here from Pan Euro Ventures.

Will de Koosta (Surplus): Good afternoon Betsan.

BP: How are you?

WK: I'm fine thank you very much.

BP: Good I'm sorry to disturb your meeting this morning. I just wanted a quick word with you. He was more than happy to meet the following day.

WK: Okay I'll be there, give me your details from your hotel ...

BP: Fine.

WK: ... in Amsterdam, yeah.

BP: Okay it's the, it's the Tulip Inn Hotel.

WK: The Tulip Inn?

BP: Yes. Our hotel wasn't difficult to spot but would the man from Surplus lead us to the real beef? We covertly recorded Will de Koosta explaining that he's the middle man, he buys ingredients from suppliers and blends them for Dutch meat processors.

WK: Surplus is a company we advise and we blend food ingredients

BP: Will de Koosta says he works to the Dutch processors' specifications. What they want he gives them. And this is the material that's injected into the chicken?

WK: Yes.

BP: And that binds the water ...

WK: Yes.

BP: ... so that the chicken holds the water. His client list was a who's who of Dutch chicken processors and one message was clear, adding meat proteins to chicken isn't illegal and there's one good reason for doing it. And you're allowed to use beef, you're allowed to use pork, you're allowed to use chicken ...

WK: Yes.

BP: ... you're allowed to use anything?

WK: Yes. Beef and pork is cheaper.

BP: So there we had it, a very good reason to put beef and pork proteins in chicken, they're cheaper.

WK: Beef and pork is cheaper.

BP: How long have they been using beef and pork?

WK: Oh ten, twelve years I think.

BP: Right. So just as the dangers of BSE hit home some Dutch processors started using beef proteins in chicken. Will de Koosta says the processors knew full well what they were buying.

WK: From the beginning we, we said it against our clients we have protein beef protein or pork protein. There's no discussion, they want protein, cheap protein.

BP: But he insisted his clients had stopped using beef and pork, now they used only chicken. Pan Euro Ventures had a favour to ask, would Will the middle man lead us to his supplier? Would he take us to visit the protein factory? It was the start of a long journey. The journey that took us over the border to Germany and to a startling revelation. The Factory Manager hadn't been keen to meet Pan Euro Ventures on site but a hint that we were keen to do business paid off. Theo Heidbrink was there to welcome us. We asked for a quick tour of the protein plant Prowico and its sister factory Bensa. It wasn't long before we noticed some familiar names. Which one is this the TRE-C-DF? Theo Heidbrink (Prowico Factory Manager): That's a bovine.

BP: I thought I recognised the ...

TH: Bovine.

BP: Oh we're going to see them tomorrow aren't we? So this mix ready for Slegtenhorst where Anna works is right next to the stack of beef proteins. In one of our tests Slegtenhorst chicken proved positive for beef DNA.

TH: That's a mix for Slegtenhorst.

BP: So that's a special mix for Slegtenhorst?

TH: Yes Slegtenhorst.

BP: Prowico's proteins are in demand world wide. They deal with all sorts of food firms and sell all sorts of proteins. So could there be a health risk, could beef proteins carry a risk of CJD? We asked a leading Government adviser on BSE. Roy Anderson (Imperial College London): At the moment it looks as though the size of the variant CJD epidemic which is the human BSE disease is going to be a lot smaller than we originally feared so it's not a highly transmissible or highly infectious agent but once acquired it's invariably lethal. And therefore all of us would like to know if there's bovine material in the product and if there is where did it come from? David Statham (FSA): This is not a food safety issue, there is no indication whatsoever that any of these ingredients have any adverse health effects. This is a food composition issue, this is food being mis-described, this is not a food safety issue.

BP: And you'll guarantee that?

DS: As, as far as one can possibly guarantee anything within you know within all the restraints of, of, of everything in relation to food production.

BP: Well you've just said that you're not sure, there might be beef in this product so I'm asking you can you guarantee that it's safe, that's what people will want to know?

DS: Even if there's beef in the product then provided that beef has been produced as we, I mean I don't know where you're, you, you got these products from but as far as the ones that we sampled were concerned and the ones that we've been looking at the beef hydrolysed protein was produced in the European Community under all the controls that relate to beef production in the European Community and that is as safe as beef will ever be.

BP: Back in Germany and Prowico's boss was about to show us the beef and more. A warehouse full of animal left-overs, a husky material made from cows, pigs, chickens, the base for the water binding powder. It won't all go into chicken but it will be gone soon.

TH: When we are producing fully it's away in three weeks.

BP: So all this will be used in three weeks of production?

TH: When we are at full capacity yeah. Will de Koosta: No I think two weeks, then it's gone.

BP: There was nothing to say where it came from, just the letter B on this pile, the word cattle in German and Mr Heidbrink's assurance that the beef is from BSE free Brazil and made only from cow hides. Do you check your beef products for BSE?

TH: No we have a BSE guaranteed because our beef products we are importing from Brazil.

BP: All your beef products?

TH: Yeah and in Brazil there is no BSE not at all. But the, the skin of beef is generally without risk. It's officially recognised by every veterinarian and food technologist.

BP: Prowico is an EU approved plant but it's a company with a secret. A secret process which made them reluctant to show us too much. We just want to see the end products or just to see ...

TH: Yeah, yeah that's no problem.

BP: But the processing itself you're not prepared to show anybody?

TH: (Indistinct) no, no. No objections to go into the store, the laboratory facilities not any problem but we think we have some special techniques ... Second reporter: That you want to keep ...

TH: ... top secret? Second reporter: Yeah.

BP: But top secret or not eventually they gave in. They'd allow us to take a peak at one part of the processing plant. Is this where all your proteins are made? It's in this room?

TH: It's in, (indistinct) and the next one (indistinct) ... Second reporter: In the next one where we're not really allowed to look?

BP: The equipment that's just behind this dividing wall is off limits. Theo Heidbrink wants to keep Prowico's special techniques hidden from view and he wants us to get a move on.

TH: I've already shown you too much. Reporter: I know. I can tell you're getting nervous.

BP: And then all becomes clear Theo Heidbrink makes a remarkable claim. Prowico has developed a new protein product, no one will ask questions about the beef in future because they won't know its there, it's undetectable.

TH: What we have we call PCR-negative proteins.

BP: This is what we were interested in.

TH: In which no animal species are detectable but that's ... Second reporter: This is new, this is a new product?

TH: Relatively new. No, no it's not a product as such it's already but we, that is what I meant with our special techniques. Second reporter: I see.

TH: We can take off the DNA.

BP: The science is complicated but the offer's clear enough. He's just claimed he can remove the DNA code from the product we want. It means tampering with what's known as base pairs to create an untraceable protein. As buyers we'll know what it's made of, so will he but the authorities and the consumer will not. The scientific test for DNA is called PCR. Prowico's PCR-negative protein wouldn't show up. It's our call. So it's up to us whether we use that or not?

TH: That's your decision not mine of course.

BP: So explain to me how the PCR-negative protein works, how you get out the DNA?

TH: By a special technique and that's what I do not want to talk about. Second reporter: No of course it's, it's your own, have you patented ...

BP: This is Prowico's state secret?

TH: The only thing I would say is that if you're able to bring the situation in such a point that you have only one base pair of DNA and never recombine it again. That's the only thing I want to say about the subject.

BP: So when the FSA or whoever in the UK tests it?

TH: Negative, negative. Second reporter: That's what our client is ...

TH: And we guarantee it.

BP: Obviously that's what he wants, yes. It must be a very popular product?

TH: But we do not guarantee it's poultry.

BP: Remember we were posing as poultry processors. What they offered to sell us was a protein that is guaranteed to beat your tests. This is an EU approved factory, what do you make of that?

David Statham: Well firstly I think they're being very brave in the suggestion that it's guaranteed to beat the tests because we certainly don't have any evidence nor do the Irish that the sensitivity of this test would be such that it would be beaten. And again clearly if a company is behaving in a way that is designed to try and mislead and, and, and take and confuse in, in that way then we would be very concerned about it. We'd be extremely concerned that they take this cavalier attitude.

BP: The concern in Prowico is to prove the new additive isn't just untraceable but cheap too. The boss does tell us we should really use poultry proteins in chicken but the new product is cheaper. And just to put our minds at rest we would not be the only people using this product by any means?

TH: No, no, no.

BP: Give me a ball park figure are we talking one or two companies or are we talking ...

TH: No, no at least twelve.

BP: At least twelve.

TH: And not only chicken, in other meats, there are people who are using beef protein but PCR-negative in hams for example.

BP: So disguised?

TH: Yeah.

BP: Would you be concerned enough to ensure that the product if it's in this country is taken off the shelf until you've properly investigated?

David Statham: Well again we did ask you to provide us with evidence if you had got something. You haven't provided it before so I can't, I can't comment on that.

BP: But I've told you very fully they guaranteed it would beat your tests. They said they could take off the DNA what do you make of that?

DS: Well they may have told you they can do that.

BP: They'd not only told us they'd shown us a lab report proving that no pork or beef DNA had been found in the new additive. A few weeks later they'd even faxed Pan Euro a copy of the report for our peace of mind.

TH: Negative, negative.

BP: So had they cracked the science? A DNA strand is made from hundreds of thousands of base pairs. If the DNA can be degraded so much there's just one pair left you're stumped. It's the sequence that tells you which animal it's from. That's what they claimed they've done.

TH: If you are able to bring the situation that only one base pair of DNA and never can recombine it again.

BP: We asked leading food research scientist Doctor Bryan Hanley if Prowico were bluffing or was this special process feasible? He talks about a base pair of DNA of not being able to recombine it, what's that about?

Doctor Bryan Hanley (Leatherhead Food International): If it is that it's a single base pair that's there then yes that's correct you won't be able to recombine it. It's a bit like going into a street and looking at a whole row of houses. You may remember from having seen them before that the house with the red door follows the house with the yellow door, the house with the green door et cetera and you may therefore be able to recognise the street. If all you see is a single house with a red door then you won't be able to tell whether it's that street or may be some other street. So getting down to a single base pair like that means that you will not be able to detect the product.

BP: So the regulators' tests could be beaten. Back in Amsterdam and Nicco has already agreed to work another shift at Lelie one of Holland's largest poultry processors. We'd asked him to look out for clues what exactly Lelie put in their chicken. Okay it's ten past five, what time does your shift start?

Nicco: Five forty five I have to be in the factory.

BP: Okay so we've got a little bit of time. This is the container, it's sterile so you just need to open it scoop some of the liquid. Nicco had seen the Lelie additive store room, he just wasn't sure he'd be able to get to it. Good luck. He thought the managers had been keeping an eye on him. He also warned us his job was in another part of the factory, packing and stacking boxes. Today he'd been told to put bags of frozen chicken from Brazil into defrosting racks ready to be injected and refrozen for export. But we were in luck he managed to leave his post long enough to spot sacks of additive. These were in the room next to the injection machines. Even luckier, one had split open. Nicco had his sample. Beef and pork DNA has turned up in Lelie chicken more than once. Now they say they're confident their chicken has no foreign DNA in it.

Nicco: I did get a sample in the store room of this white powder and it came out of a bag, the bag just had Surplus on it and the name of the company and in Dutch (indistinct) or usage known so the user will know how to use it that's all.

BP: So it sounds as though it's to their specification then?

Nicco: Yeah and there was a serial number on it.

BP: So that name again Surplus, Will de Koosta's company. What's more the serial number on the powder Nicco had found 801C was familiar. It was on the lab report Will de Koosta had faxed us as proof the authorities wouldn't find beef or pork DNA in the new PCR-negative protein.

Theo Heidbrink: Negative, negative and we guarantee that.

BP: So what if anything would the Public Analyst Laboratory in Manchester find? Andrew Smi

TH: We found some DNA but we were unable to show that it contained beef, pork, chicken or, or any other animal frankly. We just couldn't work with it there just wasn't any, enough amplifiable DNA there to, to prove anything frankly.

BP: So if we were to tell you that that was the idea of this powder that it was designed to fail your tests would that tally with what you found?

AS: Certainly yes we didn't, we didn't find anything so if, if it's been treated in some way so that the DNA test doesn't work then that's entirely consistent with what we found.

BP: Dublin could find no trace of beef or pork either. They did find some chicken DNA but remember Nicco had been handling chicken all morning and there could have been traces of chicken on the store room floor. T. Lelie have since told us they don't use 801C any more but that the supplier had guaranteed it contained only pure chicken protein. They deny they put beef or pork proteins in their chicken and say their own tests support this. Both Prowico and Surplus told Panorama that they have never sold proteins or additives without declaring their true contents, they insist the poultry products they sell are of pure poultry origin. But remember this?

Theo Heidbrink: We do not guarantee it's poultry.

BP: Both firms say it's not up to them how the product is eventually labelled. That is up to the processor, remember this?

TH: Beef protein but PCR-negative in hams for example.

BP: They point out that all the raw materials, products and production processes they use are certified as safe and closely monitored by European authorities. We've had food safety experts asking why is it that it's up to journalists to find this out and not the Food Standards Agency, surely it's your job?

David Statham: It's certainly, it is something that the Food Standards Agency if it were brought to our attention would investigate but we can't possibly be expected to, I personally can't possibly be expected to note every product that's on sale in every food manufacturer in the whole of the European Economic Community. I, particularly if that producer as you've described is an unscrupulous and illegal producer.

BP: He's not doing anything illegal as he points out all the time.

DS: He may say that but I totally disagree.

BP: How are you going to stop him you're not even going to know it's in the product?

DS: You apparently have the information, if you bring it to our attention we will investigate.

BP: We've had the powder tested, the lab failed to find anything in it. Camera Man: Sorry, we've run out of tape.

BP: Before we could ask any more and while the tape was being changed the interview was suddenly cut short. A fortnight later the Food Standards Agency agreed to finish it. Having had time to reflect, what would their response now be?

DS: We can guarantee that we have tackled this problem and tackled it effectively. We can guarantee that we were the first agency even to, to, to find that this was a problem. We can guarantee that we've got European backing for tackling this problem Europe wide. We can guarantee that the European Commission even as we speak is producing new legislation to tackle this issue. We can guarantee that we were the first country to prosecute anybody for this type of process and we will continue to take action until the, the, the product has been dealt with properly and effectively and efficiently.

BP: You knew nothing about this did you until we told you a few weeks ago?

DS: We, you have brought some things to our attention. We hope that you will provide evidence that, that you have gathered that we will then be able to investigate. Obviously we haven't seen any of this evidence, once we've got it we'll investigate and we'll use all the powers that we have to tackle the problem.

BP: Panorama will be handing all our evidence of fraud and mislabelling to the FSA. Chicken more than ever is the food of choice for our children. Last year in the UK we ate over a million tons of it. None of us knows how much frozen Dutch chicken contains additives from other animals and if some processors have found ways of making them untraceable we may never know what we're eating. Industry insider (actor's voice): This makes a joke of traceability. How can the FSA ever guarantee food safety when they won't be sure what's in it? How will any of us know what we're eating? Tim Lang: We've got to sort out issues like this. We've got to make clear that science is working for us not for the adulterators, not for the fraudsters, not for the people who want to just make a little bit of profit out of our desire and our biological need to eat. This is very important.