home
13 new cases 2/6/01, (Imperial College model = bollocks). Does anyone need anymore proof that the 'science' that the Government has based its FMD 'stratergy' on is rubbish?

The strongest clue to how deadly the situation has become is the experience in Settle - the Bermuda 'rectangle' of foot and mouth.  Crucially, while sheep flocks in Cumbria were being found with infection levels of 10-20 percent, as much as 80 percent of animals in the Settle area have been found infected.  Add to that the reports from vets that they are finding a high proportion of healed lesions and this becomes highly significant and very worrying. Far from Settle suffering from 'sporadic outbursts', as prime minister Blair put it, the disease has been there some considerable time and has become well-established.  It had not suddenly spread to the area.

A strong rumour that the disease has spread into East Yorkshire and down into Lincolnshire, has been well-established in Derbyshire for some time, and is roaring away through the Brecon Beacons - as well as grumbling on in Devon - the picture is far from happy. 

No comfort can be taken from Ministry reports.  These have long proved unreliable - and even recently, a well-authenticated report was received of infection on the hills to the east of Manchester, which the Ministry chose to ignore.

"If Downing Street had not been seduced by the misguided model forecast put forward by Imperial College when the FMD storm was at its height then tens of thousands of cattle would not have been taken out in the contiguous cull and hundreds of farms would still have their herds intact," says the NBA.

According to NBA only 25% of the 425,000 cattle killed so far were on infected premises, while 'over enthusiasm' for wider controls turned the culling programme into mass slaughter. "The irony is that only a minority of these additional deaths will have done anything to slow down the spread of the disease because it had reached its peak when the already discredited contiguous cull was implemented," said Association chief executive, Robert Forster."The decision to introduce it was too hurried because it was made against a background of political excitement. We stand by the view that the clampdown on animal movement on February 23, the vigilance of farmers who have reported twice as many false alarms as they have FMD cases, and the immediate slaughter of infected animals have been the real drivers in the reduction of the disease. "We remain dismayed that there is so much acceptance in veterinary circles that the information fed into the (Imperial College) models that dazzled the government and (the results) were used by non-veterinary advisors to justify the contiguous cull which (was) flawed."

Alan Beat Wednesday June 6, 2001 The Guardian (ìSocietyî section, p. 9)

Three weeks ago in the Veterinary Record, the head of the government's research faculty argued that the government's response to foot and mouth - the contiguous cull policy - was unnecessary.

Alex Donaldson, director of Pirbright laboratory at the Institute for Animal Health, argued that airborne transmission of the foot and mouth virus between livestock was limited to short distances of less than 100 metres, that the contiguous cull was unnecessary and that monitoring of livestock considered to be at risk should replace slaughter on suspicion.

Anthony Gibson, regional director NFU south-west, describes it as "the most damning indictment yet of the govern-
ment's controversial contiguous cull policy."The contiguous cull has been exposed for what it was; one of the most
bloody, tragic and disgraceful misjudgments ever committed in the name of science,"

Donaldson's revelations carry considerable weight because of his position as head of the government's own research faculty, and his status as one of the world's leading authorities on foot and mouth.

But his latest article merely updates work published the year before. And since Donaldson himself sits on the government's scientific advisory committee, it is inconceivable that this was not put before the assembled experts for consideration.

"An integrated model to predict the atmospheric spread of foot- and-mouth virus" was published last year in the scientific journal Epidemiology and Infection. The paper, which Donaldson co-authored with three others specialists, described in detail the development of computer modeling software that combines meteorological input with foot and mouth disease data
to predict the direction and distance that the airborne virus may travel. Using historical records from two previous disease outbreaks it "predicted" the known spread of virus. The model was also used to predict the risk of infection spreading from livestock on one farm to another, using existing data drawn from a wide range of published research.

The authors conclude that "transmission from infected cattle or sheep could not be shown to occur over distances of more than about 3km."

Were the extended cull and firewall policies introduced to Cumbria and the Scottish borders with a 3km limit based on this very prediction? If so, it is confirmation that the scientific advisory committee were familiar with, and were utilizing, the information contained in the paper.

However, this 3km distance was a "worst case" scenario, applicable only to cattle, and only when 1,000 infected cattle or sheep were positioned upwind. The corresponding distance for risk of infection in sheep was 500 metres. During a high-profile epidemic, such huge numbers of infected stock cannot pass undetected and a more realistic limit would lie between 10 and 100 infected animals on any one farm.

At this more practical upper limit of 100 infected animals, the maximum distance over which cattle were predicted to be at risk was 700 metres, while for sheep this reduced to less than 100 metres. For a more typical farm situation of 10 infected animals, where the signs of disease were promptly seen, the distance of risk reduced further to less than 100 metres for both cattle and sheep.

These were the distances predicted by the best available veterinary science. Yet the scientific advisory committee recommended a draconian policy of 3km or contiguous culls. Why?

Blair said that there was no alternative to this policy. Nick Brown, stated repeatedly in the House of Commons that government policy "was based on the latest scientific and veterinary advice".

The unpalatable truth is that the best veterinary scientific advice was ignored by those responsible for formulating government policy. Instead, they favoured the computer modeling of university-based epidemiologists who proposed the spread of disease by making assumptions about a hypothetical "standard" livestock species, and about the statistical chance of spread to neighbouring animals, which had no factual basis in veterinary science.

Can there be any doubt that this science was placed before top- level meetings involving Blair, Brown, The Chief Vet and others responsible for formulating policy, since Donaldson was included in these discussions?

It is also impossible to believe that the NFU hierarchy were unaware of these facts, since they too were involved at the highest levels of consultation throughout.

Independent 3 June 2001 :http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=75964

Agriculture ministers are facing legal action by the National Farmers' Union for wrongly slaughtering thousands of healthy animals during the foot and mouth crisis.

Senior officials in the NFU have revealed they are preparing to sue the Ministry of Agriculture for damages in dozens of cases where unaffected livestock was unnecessarily slaughtered or killed by mistake.

Martin Haworth, the union's director of policy, said it was "very likely"that the NFU would take action. "I think there will be a series of test cases and then possibly a series of class actions, depending on the results
of the test cases," he said.

This threat by the NFU marks the most serious breakdown so far in the relationship it has had with Maff. Ministers believe that the industry has been well compensated by the Government. They also privately feel that some farmers have exploited the foot and mouth crisis and helped to promote the disease by illegally moving livestock.

ARMED police are being put on standby to support the cull to combat foot-and-mouth disease.

Police chiefs admitted for the first time this week that a special response unit had been held in reserve at a farm where the owners had appealed against the slaughter of healthy animals.

But the presence of armed officers has been slammed as 'over the top' by the family concerned.

Dumfries and Galloway Police initially denied armed officers had been in attendance at Tony Jackson's Holywood farm two weeks ago. This was later retracted and a spokesperson confirmed an armed response unit was 'held in reserve nearby'.

Dairy farmer Mr Jackson, of Guillyhill farm, sought a Judicial Review at the Court of Session of the decision to kill his 260 Holstein Friesian cattle and 170 calves in the pre-emptive cull.

He insisted his "fortress farming" had prevented the foot-and-mouth virus reaching his stock. However, his challenge was thrown out and the killing teams moved in on April 10.

Police officers arrived on the day to take Mr Jackson's guns away so that "the personnel carrying out the cull did not feel nervous as they went about their work". Mr Jackson said this week: "At no time was anyone threatened and their reaction was so over the top. I was very surprised that armed police were in attendance."

On the day of the cull a distraught Mrs Jackson had told The Standard she had seen armed officers on the farm.

She said at the time: "We have never threatened violence ­ we have just stood up for what we think is right. If you think something is wrong then you cannot just let it go, but to be treated like a criminal it is absolutely horrible."

When Mr Jackson was asked this week whether he thought he had been criminalised, he answered: "It certainly gives that impression when armed officers are in attendance." He added that he did not blame the police for the heavy-handed response and said they were only following orders from government officials.

Mr Jackson continued: "Many farmers I have spoken to are now more frightened about the arrival of Tony Blair's Gestapo than they ever were of foot-and-mouth."

A police inspector visited the Jackson's last week to return their firearms and to explain the police response. A spokesperson for the force added that the Jackson family should be praised for their full cooperation with officers.

Hundreds of slaughtered farms that would previously have been included in Maff's daily outbreak figure are now being reclassified as "slaughter on suspicion" or "dangerous contacts". While the published total of outbreaks had risen by 27/4/01 to 1,499, "suspicious" or "contact" cases had reached more than 1,000, although none are included in the main total.

The decision to include outbreaks in the headline total only when they are subsequently confirmed by laboratory testing has also had a dramatic effect in lowering the epidemic curve, not least since, as the agriculture minister, Nick Brown, told MPs on Wednesday, tests on destroyed animals have in two-thirds of cases been negative. This alone has meant a reduction of more than 60 per cent in the declared number of outbreaks.

Mr Brown also confirmed that Maff is no longer, as previously, testing for foot and mouth in victims of its huge "contiguous cull", under which it has slaughtered all animals on as many as 5,000 farms that fell within a designated "three-kilometre zone" around an infected holding. Since many of these animals may be infected, the decision to stop testing means that they too are no longer added to the figures.

There are persistent reports that infected farms are simply not appearing on the Maff website. On a day when Cumbrian farmers counted no fewer than 24 holdings that had been declared infected in their county alone, Maff reported only nine new cases in the whole county.

However, the most alarming policy switch of all appears to be Maff's new reluctance to confirm genuine cases of foot and mouth even when local vets are adamant that animals have the disease . This contrasts starkly with the ministry's earlier readiness to confirm foot and mouth on the slightest suspicion and provides a further reason why the official computer model shows the figures plummeting.

The story the Government wants us all to believe is that the epidemic will be over by June. The true story is that the Government is still desperately worried that the disease may spread from sheep to cattle, as the nation's dairy cows come out of winter quarters on to grass.

Last week, away from the headlines, it was reported from Dumfries and Galloway that "they are killing every sheep in sight". Similar massacres are planned for the Forest of Dean, Northumberland and Devon. Mr Blair is now plunging on more recklessly than ever, with the greatest gamble of his premiership. Having rejected vaccination it seems his advisers are now falling back on fiddling the figures. It is an awesome gamble.

David and Jane Steer, who run Pywell Farm near Barnstaple, are among many farmers who have experienced Maff's latest technique for adjusting the foot and mouth figures downwards. After they reported that sheep bought in Cumbria last September had for months been showing suspicious signs of sickness, two Maff vets came to examine the animals. They insisted it was not foot and mouth.

Although until recently Maff had seemed happy to order the killing of animals on the slightest evidence, when the vets returned next day they were still adamant, ruling that the blisters on the animals' tongues must have come from eating thorns.

However, last Sunday two South African vets arrived, with direct experience of foot and mouth. They did not hesitate in diagnosing that this was why one dead lamb had a tongue "like the back of a crocodile", and rang Maff in London. Despite putting their view for two hours they were told there was still "not enough evidence".

On Monday, the South Africans carried out a post-mortem. This proved beyond doubt the lamb had died from FMD. After two more hours shouting to London down the telephone, they eventually said they were wasting their time and would be heading back to South Africa. At last their diagnosis was reluctantly accepted, and the animals were slaughtered. Similar stories from Shropshire and Cumbria were last week reported to the Commons select committee by the Tory MP Owen Paterson. ( source Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph 29/4/01)

Dr Simon Barteling, formerly head of the European Community's foot and mouth planning team reports that, many EU countries, including Holland, Germany and France, had routinely used vaccination against foot and mouth disease until1990. Over the years "billions of animals" had been treated and there had never been any problem over their meat or milk going into the human food chain.

He is astonished that vaccination had not been used. But, he said: "Brussels doesn't like vaccination," and it seemed that Britain thought likewise.

OUTLINE OF MAFF VIEW ON VACCINATION

27/2/01 They said: "The European Union has a policy of non-vaccination except in extreme circumstances. This is because there are trade implications to vaccinating which would make this option unacceptable. However EU countries including the UK have access to an international bank of FMD vaccine.Vaccination has always been an option."

3/4/01 They said: "We could use a national policy of vaccination as a protection mechanism against Foot and Mouth. This is not a policy adopted or favoured by any EU Member State, or by the European Commission. It is also opposed by most farmers, the livestock industry and food producers. Use of the vaccine in this way would mean loss of disease free status and cripple exports worth £1.3 billion a year. Or we could use emergency vaccination in a role to control the outbreak , either to establish zones of protection between infected areas and the rest of the country, or to reduce the number of cases in disease hot spots. The Commission has already agreed to the possible temporary use of vaccination in such circumstances by the Dutch authorities. The Government is considering whether to use vaccination. The SVC has now agreed that emergency vaccination of cattle in Devon and Cumbria could be carried out if applicable."

THE UNs EMPRES project to which the UK is a signatory produced a report " New Technologies in the fight against Transboundary Animal Diseases "

by FAO-Japan Cooperative Project 'Collection of Information on Animal Production and Health', with support of the Japan Racing Association (JRA) fund. It has been prepared by Drs. Chris Baldock, Tony Forman, Bill Geering and Bill Taylor, in collaboration with the Infectious Diseases-EMPRES Group, Animal Health Service, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO.

"The aim of this report is to bring to the attention of professional workers in this field the newer technology (VACCINES) that may be available to them in their endeavours against transboundary animal diseases. " such as " better vaccines for disease control and eradication programmes."

CLEARLY MAFF HAVE NEVER READ IT!!

http://www.fao.org/livestock/agah/

empres/Info/other/newtech.pdf

Animal Health / Prevention and Control of Animal diseases Brussels, 19 March 2001

Foot-and-Mouth Disease : Questions and answers on vaccination policy of the EU

Why is there currently no vaccination in the EU against FMD? - Vaccination was abandoned in 1991 because the EU had successfully eradicated FMD. This decision has saved over ?1 billion and allowed EU producers to export to countries which only allow imports from FMD-free countries not following a vaccination policy. - However, the Community does maintain a antigen bank with up to 30 million vaccine doses of antigen (8,5 million for the current O-1 strain present in the UK and in Mayenne in France). These are envisaged in a situation where there is an outbreak of epidemic proportions where the authorities must introduce "preventive vaccination", i.e. action to halt the spread of the disease pending the killing and subsequent destruction of potentially contaminated animals. However, following first inoculation of the vaccine, it would take some time to have a sufficiently strong immunity.

Will the Commission review its non-vaccination policy? - Vaccinated animals are not necessarily disease free - the antigens build up through vaccination can hide the actual presence of FMD in an animal. - There are very significant logistical and cost implications in vaccination, twice yearly, of a Community livestock population of over 300 million susceptible animals. - Vaccination is only effective in relation to the strain of FMD concerned and offers no protection against other strains of the virus. At present 7 strains of the FMD virus exist with around 80 subtypes. Every vaccination has to target therefore carefully the correct strain. Third countries which do vaccinate on a preventive basis because FMD is endemic on their territory do regularly see new outbreaks of FMD due to the variability of the virus. - Finally, the loss of the EU's non-vaccination status would involve substantial losses in trade to third countries which insist on imports from foot and mouth free countries. The EU could only export products which are treated against the virus. The status of "FMD-free without vaccination" is attributed by the International Organisation on Animal Health (OIE) in Paris. Only 1/3 of the world are approximately FMD-free. See also: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/AGAH/EUFMD/fmdmaps/default.htm

In summary, therefore, the disadvantages of vaccination outweigh the benefits. Nonetheless, this situation will be kept under review.

Is over-regulation, forcing the closing of small abattoirs, a factor? Competitive forces and especially economies of scale, are recognised to be the major factor in rationalisation in the abattoir industry. The illegal import of contaminated meat remains the most likely cause of the current outbreak. More generally, the question of hygiene regulation in abattoirs should take into account that the current outbreak was discovered through an ante-mortem inspection by a well trained official veterinarian. His presence in the abattoir is a requirement under Community law and is designed to ensure that diseases which are a potential threat to human and animal health, including BSE but also FMD, are detected. It would be dangerous to abandon the principle of high and uniform hygiene standards in abattoirs in all Member States. Such an approach would be a backward step in ensuring a high level of health protection.

Is the large scale transport of animals the cause of the current outbreak? Clearly, any process which brings animals from different herds together in a single place or exposes them to large numbers of other animals increases the potential for the spread of disease. But: - Most trade in meat and meat products is in carcass form and the number of animals in long distance transport is in constant decline ever since refrigeration allowed animal carcasses to be transported over long distances; - Regulations exist to minimise the potential spread of disease in transport, including "no-exit" provisions on transport to abattoirs, tracability of livestock movements through the ANIMO system, disinfection of lorries and livestock marts, health certification of animals etc; - There will always be a need for long distance transport of specialised livestock (breeding stock, racehorses etc.). However, it remains a Commission objective to further reduce the level of long distance animal transport and to improve the welfare conditions of animals in transport. A Commission report on animal transport was recently presented to the Council and Parliament in this respect.

Is intensive farming at the origin of the disease? All contributory factors must be considered but very simple explanations for very complex problems should be avoided. FMD was eradicated in the EU in the late 80's which permitted an end to vaccination in 1991. Since 1991, there have only been outbreaks in Italy (1993), Greece (animal incursions from Turkey) and now in the UK. This is a very successful record given that prior to 1991, FMD outbreaks were commonplace with resulting huge trade, income and vaccination costs. Moreover: - FMD is most prevalent in countries/regions where agriculture is very "traditional" - Middle East/North Africa/Turkey/South America. Conversely, outbreaks are extremely rare in the OECD countries which have the most intensive agriculture; - Similarly, FMD was much more prevalent in the EU in the past, when agriculture was less intensive, than at present. There have only been a handful of cases since 1991 - in Italy (1993) and in Greece (2000) in most recent years.

Is there financial compensation available to producers? Yes, the Commission provides compensation, up to 60%, towards the costs of animals destroyed, disinfection etc under an Emergency Veterinary Fund. A total of ?41 million is available towards such compensation in 2001. This is expected to be fully utilised in relation to payments to Member States in respect of animal disease outbreaks in previous years, notably avian influenza in Italy, bluetongue in Italy in France and in Spain, classical swine fever in the Netherlands and UK and FMD in Greece. Any claims arising from the current outbreak would, therefore, be likely to be reimbursed only in 2002. However, based on the current scale of the outbreak, the costs are not likely to be significant. Released on 20/03/2001

---

TORIES TALKING RUBBISH.

fmdaction@ukfarmers.com

---

home.

The creators accept no responsibility for this sites accuracy or otherwise, and do not condone or encourage anything which may be reported in good faith.