 Nearlythree million UK sheep, pigs, cattle and goats have been slaughtered in recent weeks in a bid to combat foot & mouth disease. Debate about the slaughter policy has been intense, with many parties in favour of vaccination. In the first of an exclusive new series called Talking Heads, just-food.com brings Phil Stocker of the Soil Association head to head with Peter Rudman and Martin Haworth of the National Farmers Union to explain their points of view. |
| 1) What, in your opinion, would have been the best way to handle the foot and mouth crisis? Did you agree with the government decision to introduce mass culls? |
NFU response:
The decision to tackle the foot and mouth disease outbreak by culling of infected
and contact animals was taken immediately the first case was confirmed. In the
NFU’s view this was the right approach if genuine eradication were to be achieved,
and was consistent with EU policy. As it became apparent that prior sheep movements
had spread the virus over a much wider geographical area than originally thought,
the logistics of slaughter and carcass disposal within prescribed time periods
became much more difficult. More resources and more urgency from the Government,
and the earlier introduction of military assistance, would have improved the
situation sooner. The contiguous cull, essential from the point of view of disease
control, only aggravated the practical problems associated with a slaughter
strategy.
Soil Association response:
At the start of the outbreak the Soil Association fully supported MAFF’s slaughter
policy to regain UK disease-free status as rapidly as possible. However, once
it was clear that the number of cases was not being contained we argued that
the eradication strategy should be reviewed. We proposed a new policy, combining
selective slaughter and vaccination. Implementing this immediately would have
saved further slaughter and aided the financial recovery of dependent industries.
Support for this position gained momentum during the outbreak with many countryside
organisations supporting this stance, and the establishment of the Farmers for
Voluntary Vaccination and Vets for Vaccination lobby groups.
Go deeper with GlobalData
| 2) Scientific knowledge states that the animal virus poses no threat to humans and clears up in animals after 7-10 days, when the animal has developed antibodies. Should not the virus therefore have been left to run its course? |
NFU response:
While normal adult animals will usually survive foot and mouth disease and build
an immunity to the particular virus serotype to which they were exposed, death
of young animals is not uncommon. In this current epidemic, lamb mortality of
up to 90% has been recorded, death resulting from cardiac failure from virus
invasion of heart muscle. Leaving the disease to run its course is therefore
not an option from the animal welfare point of view. Recovered animals can also
spread live virus for considerable periods following recovery, so eradication
of disease from a population is not achieved by this method.
Soil Association response:
Allowing the virus to run its course would have had the advantage of building
immunity to foot and mouth disease within UK’s livestock herds and flocks. Organic
farming encourages enhanced immunity to disease through good husbandry and low
level exposure to disease. The use of homoeopathy to boost livestock immunity
is also supported.
However, the current outbreak was particularly virulent and we would not want
to see animals suffering from severe symptoms (as exhibited by some pigs and
cattle). Therefore, once it was evident that the disease was spreading rapidly
and out of control, we lobbied for a strategy of selective slaughter – of suffering
animals with foot and mouth – and vaccination of animals at risk of contracting.
| 3) Should the government consider a scheme of vaccination to prevent a similar crisis happening again? |
NFU response:
The consensus of opinion of veterinary virologists and epidemiologists involved
in the current outbreak is that emergency vaccination would neither shorten
the epidemic nor necessarily reduce the extent of slaughter. Intensive discussions
were held in the middle of April with Ministers, the Chief Scientist and others
to decide whether a limited strategy of protective vaccination might be undertaken
to reduce slaughter numbers in the short term. This would have allowed existing
slaughter and disposal requirements to be met, but it was decided that the possible
consequences of such a programme were not consistent with the aim of eliminating
fmd virus from the animal population.
It might be necessary or appropriate in any future outbreak to use vaccine to
supplement a slaughter programme. The NFU would welcome the broadest possible
discussion of options once the current epidemic is over.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataSoil Association response:
No. There should be no need for continued long term vaccination of livestock
against foot and mouth disease. Routine vaccination is discouraged in organic
management in favour of other methods of raising natural immunity. Vaccination
should be used to bring the current outbreak of the disease fully under control,
that is to ensure there is no further culling of healthy animals. The government
should make use of vaccination should a future outbreak occur.
| 4) What are the lessons to be learnt from this crisis? |
NFU response:
Lessons to be learnt: we must review our measures to prevent the introduction
and spread of animal diseases. This means a proper enforcement of our controls
on imports (that is, prevention of illegal commercial imports of meat and proper
surveillance of personal imports by travellers). It also means a serious look
at the "critical control points" for the transmission of disease within
the country, including feeding of waste meat products to animals (the government
has already acted on this); and the movement and traceability of animals (this
is really a problem for sheep as there are already strict regulations governing
pigs, and a movement register and central data base for cattle).
Soil Association response:
The rapid spread of foot and mouth disease has been exacerbated by the high
livestock density of many modern farms and by livestock movements that have
increased in frequency and distance over past decades. Livestock markets allow
frequent mixing of millions of animals and the recent trend for fewer and larger
abattoirs requires animals to travel further, both giving more opportunity to
spread infection. The Soil Association wants to see the re-opening of small
and medium sized abattoirs to enable livestock to be slaughtered locally.
This epidemic follows a string of crises in UK farming including BSE, e-coli
and salmonella outbreaks: all wake-up calls that we need a complete turnaround
in philosophy, to one of farming for positive health. The Soil Association has
prepared an action plan for sustainable farming to give guidance on key features
of a sustainable farming policy – one that protects the environment, the health
of plants, animals and soil, and one that promotes public health.
|
5) How do you think the crisis will affect the countryside and the |
NFU response:
Changes in the practice of British farming: terrible though it is, the disease
will present an opportunity for British farming, and specifically livestock
farming, to relaunch itself on a sounder basis. It is by no means certain that
this will happen, but we hope that we could emerge with a beef and sheep sector
more focused on market demand, and more responsive to the market, with a better
meat chain with fewer unnecessary and costly links and with a better marketing
structure. These things could deliver farmers a better market return. Changes
in the countryside: not so evident or necessary, but if we could establish a
sounder link between agriculture and the rural economy, particularly tourism,
in some areas this would be a good thing. This may mean having a different kind
of livestock industry, with different objectives in upland areas for example.
Soil Association response:
For over fifty years agricultural policy in Britain has headed in one, unrelenting,
direction. The drive to encourage ever greater and cheaper food production has
led to the development of largely unsustainable farming practices to the detriment
of environmental, human and animal health.
We believe that organic farming, the best example of sustainable agriculture,
is the key to regenerating the rural economy. Not just for the production of
safe and healthy food but also for increased employment, a better environment
and improved human health.
We must put local and fresh food at the top of our national shopping priority
list. That is why the Soil has published an action plan for sustainable agriculture
outlines why we believe that organic farming is the best example of sustainable
agriculture and is key to regenerating the rural economy. It argues the case
for the production of safe and healthy food and also for increased employment,
a better environment and improved human health.
|
just-food.com would like to thank Phil Stocker, head of agriculture for the Soil Association, and Peter Rudman and Martin Haworth, respectively veterinary & public health advisor and director of policy for the National Farmers’ Union, for taking the time to answer our questions. |
