WESTERN MORNING NEWS APRIL 3, 2001
First of all, I owe readers an apology. Much of what I wrote last week about vaccination as an option for controlling the Foot and Mouth epidemic was misleading and mistaken. The only excuse I can offer is that the misinformation which has been put about on the subject, by MAFF especially, but also by the EU, beggars belief. Never can such a vital scientific issue have been shrouded in such a fog of misinformation and obfuscation.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. First thing yesterday morning, I received an e-mail from Brussels, setting out what was purported to the EU Commission’s official policy on the subject. This stated: "If it is decided in the Netherlands or elsewhere in the EU to introduce emergency vaccination, this may only be on condition that the animals concerned are subsequently slaughtered and destroyed."
Yet we know for a fact – because I have a copy of it in front of me as I write – that the EU Standing Veterinary Committee’s decision on a possible vaccination policy in Cumbria and Devon makes no mention of vaccinated cattle having to be slaughtered. They would be under restriction for a period of 12 months after the last animal in the "vaccination zone" had been treated. Thereafter, normal farming life would be resumed.
It would not, of course, be as simple as that. All of the sheep and pigs in the vaccination zone would have to be killed; milk and meat from the vaccinated cattle would have to be processed in plants within the zone and the entire area affected would undoubtedly be blighted, for at least a year, possibly longer.
There are also suggestions – although these should be treated with caution, because they do not appear in the Committee’s conclusions – that outbreak farms and their neighbours in the zone could not be re-stocked for a year, and that the cattle would have to be housed for the full 12 months.
If either condition were to be imposed, the practical difficulties it would present would be daunting. Some farmers have even said that they would prefer their vaccinated animals to be slaughtered, rather than having to keep them under these conditions, especially as there is no guarantee that there would be any market for milk and meat from vaccinated cattle.
Fortunately, it is looking increasingly unlikely that vaccination will be necessary. Reducing the interval between report of disease and slaughter of infected animals seems to be doing the trick. But if a decision does have to be made, it is vital that it is based on an accurate representation of what would be involved, rather than the blatant misrepresentations which, for whatever reason, have been put about.
In the meantime, we are stuck with the "contiguous cull", and what a blunt instrument that is turning out to be. There is, of course, an obvious logic in taking out the farms neighbouring an outbreak of Foot and Mouth because there must be a presumption that they could have been infected and might play a part in further spread.
But there will be cases – for example where a neighbouring farm is separated from the outbreak farm by a large area of arable land, or woodland, or a quarry – where the risk of infection will be much less. That was why, when Tony Blair was in Exeter 10 days ago, he agreed that there should be an appeals procedure.
As it turns out, you would have had a better chance of succeeding in an appeal against one of Stalin’s edicts than you have of winning exemption from the contiguous cull. Now that would be understandable (just) if the justice was universally rough. But there have been several examples (Monkleigh being the most obvious) where sheep on a farm which was not technically contiguous have represented a much greater disease threat, but have not been taken. Result: unnecessary slaughter of healthy cattle, and spread of disease, leading to further unnecessary slaughter and so on.
What farmers across North Devon are saying – and soon they will be shouting it – is why take cattle, which show the disease immediately when they have the disease, when it is sheep which are harbouring it? Why not do what they have done in Cumbria, and slaughter all sheep and pigs within a 3km zone around every outbreak, and only take cattle if there really has been a dangerous contact?
So when Joyce Quin talks about a "review" of the contiguous cull policy, let us hope that what she means is a change to it. Too many decisions on this outbreak have been based on prejudice and bad science. If the farmers of North Devon rise up in revolt against a stupid policy it will damage the cause for which we all our fighting – defeat of Foot and Mouth.
And the explanation for that Brussels e-mail? "It must have been a press release put out before the Committee made its decision". How on earth are we supposed to make sensible policy decisions against this sort of background?