Back
to ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage
Cattle farmers in England at end of their
tether with DEFRA over TB control
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Perthshire and Edinburgh
Filed 19 Feb 06
©www.land-care.org.uk
The major problem of bovine tuberculosis (bTB),
particularly in the south west of England, has been known for many
years; as indeed has the solution (1).
Instead of getting better, the problem in cattle is getting progressively
worse and has now reached even more alarming proportions (2).
Clearly it a major issue with regard to bovine health. It also has
serious economic consequences, not only for farmers in the most
affected areas but for the UK cattle industry as a whole.
Distribution of bovine TB hotspots
in UK
(data from DEFRA)
To enlarge Click Here
In addition there are serious implications regarding
certain aspects of the UK's wildlife, particularly badgers. That
the situation has been allowed to develop into such huge proportions
over almost three decades, reflects very poorly on the UK government
and its ministry for animal health. In relation to other EU countries
we in the UK are in a league of our own in terms of our apparent
inability to control this disease.
Central to the problem is the fact that the attractive
looking badger is a co-sufferer. When infected it suffers a lingering,
debilitating and stressful death. Other wildlife may be implicated,
but the badger is the species most involved. This has also been
known for decades, but the recommendations to government contained
in the Zuckerman Report in 1980 were never implemented, and still
have not been implemented. This is the core issue that cattle farmers
in England have with DEFRA. In Scotland the situation is comparatively
much better, but this is likely to be related to the fact that the
infection in badgers - and possibly other wildlife - has not as
yet spread to Scotland.
In other countries, such as New Zealand, where
a comparable situation of escalating bTB was recognised to be linked
with a secondary reservoir in their wildlife - in their case, the
possum - radical measures were taken to eradicate the disease in
both the cattle and the possums. The result was that in New Zealand
the problem of TB in cattle has been substantially improved, while
the problem in the UK continues to get worse at an alarming rate.
In the UK the "conservation" lobbyists
obtained "protected" status for the badger. This is ironic,
as there can be little protection for a species that is allowed
to harbour such a debilitating disease. Eradicating TB from badgers
does not mean eradicating all badgers in the land - far from it.
A healthier population of badgers should result. The "protected"
status of UK badgers would appear to have coloured the supposedly
scientific inquiries into how to handle the problem of TB in UK
cattle.
In the UK the government, through its Minster
of Animal Health (part of DEFRA), has failed to grasp the problem
and allowed endless procrastination to occur on the excuse that
proven scientific evidence is required before they are willing to
deal with the reservoir of TB infection in badgers in bTB hotspots.
The result has been endless trials that for one reason or another
never seem to reach an unequivocal conclusion. It is alleged that
among the reasons for this include the poor design of the trials
and the poor way they have been carried out (possibly not helped
by activists among the badger conservation lobby). In contrast to
the Krebs style trials in the UK, the Irish achieved much more convincing
results.
It is a fact of science that it may not be possible
to statistically prove what may be obvious to those involved. Some
400 vets have written to DEFRA in favour of the culling of badgers
in infected areas. Indeed it may be on the verge of the pedantic
to insist on scientific proof when the methods of doing such research
are so flawed, and the tools available so inaccurate.
What has so upset the English cattle men are the
precipitous and one-sided measures that DEFRA have introduced, involving
pre- and post-movement TB testing of cattle, with the financial
burden on the farmer and virtually none on DEFRA, and without any
action whatsoever in relation to the known reservoir of the infection
in badgers. The farmer is expected by DEFRA to carry the substantial
financial burden, doing repetitive testing and complying with severe
restriction orders that will seriously disrupt trade for prolonged
periods, when nothing is being done about the pool of disease in
the local badgers. Only an irresponsible political procrastinator
would suggest that a scientific trial is required to establish that
TB could rather readily get back into his cattle.
The situation in Scotland is much easier, because
to date the incidence of bTB is low and there is, so far, no evidence
of TB in Scottish wildlife. But if the situation in south west England
is allowed to continue there could be serious consequences for the
whole of the UK as a result of its inevitable spread. Also in terms
of the bureaucrats, the UK could loose its "TB-free" status
and thereby suffer serious trade limitations.
What is so galling to the cattlemen is the blatant
hypocrisy of the conservation lobby on this issue, clearly articulated
by the National Beef Association (NBA). How can neglect to deal
with the problem that also affects badgers be in the long- term
interests of badgers and their conservation?
What also needs to be questioned is the propriety
of an organisation such as the RSPCA, which is a registered charity,
in placing a highly expensive advertisement in a national newspaper
with allegedly highly misleading statements about the role of badgers
in the spread of TB in cattle. Who is it that is being cruel to
animals by arguing against the control of this disease, be it in
cattle or badgers, by promoting false information in a highly emotive
manner (3)? It would appear that
the behaviour of the RSPCA in this regard goes far beyond their
status as registered charity for the protection of cruelty to animals,
and undermines their credibility with regard to the important function
that they are supposed to be doing.
But the chronic and ever worsening problem of
TB in the UK's cattle and wildlife is just one example of the now
massively damaging role of the single interest lobby groups that
rally under the banners of "conservation", "biodiversity"
and "sustainable environment". At any gathering of "stakeholders"
set up by government to discuss and to provide consensus opinions
on farming, those who work on the land and its livestock and the
professionals who support them are likely to be out voted. This
problem was well described by a previous president of the British
Veterinary Association, Tim Greet (4)
when he said:
"The current Government fashion for stakeholders
meetings provides single interest groups with an ideal platform
to influence Government thinking: we must be aware of the potential
of this lobby to distort the facts"
The government seems to simply put its finger
to the wind to guess where public opinion in terms of votes might
lie. There is also the suspicion that government is too able and
too willing to manipulate the information supplied to the media.
Was it not strange that when the problem of TB in cattle in the
south west of England was recently being discussed on TV at peak
viewing time (bbc/breakfast) not a single word about badgers was
mentioned?
In the long run, when the extent of the damage
is recognised by the public, the voters will not be best pleased
with their political leaders. But such appears to be the mindset
of most politicians: if some disaster might happen sufficiently
far in the future so as not to affect their personal prospects in
the short-term, why bother.
Recently, Professor Mark Shucksmith, Newcastle
University, gave a lecture to the Royal Society of Edinburgh entitled,
"Social Justice in Rural Areas". In it he referred to
the role of what sociologists call "symbolic violence",
although he was diplomatic enough not to give any specific examples.
As I understood him, symbolic violence seems to be very much to
the fore as exercised by single interest lobby groups with regard
to their continual obstruction to the urgent implementation of a
balanced approach to the control of TB in UK livestock and wildlife.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Irvine, James (2003). TB in
cattle and badgers: Zuckerman Report (1980) revisited.
See TUBERCULOSIS Homepage. filed 10 Mar 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
2. DEFRA (2006).Provisional TB
statistics for Great Britain. Accessed 21 Feb 06.
http://www. defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/index.htm Click
Here to View pdf
3. Vaughan, Gareth (2006).
Are the RSPCA justified?
Scottish Farmer , February 11th, p
6.
4. Editorial (2004). BVA congress
2004: address by president Tim Greet.
Abridged from a press release issued by the BVA
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 14 Oct 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Finis
|
