|
Back to FMD Homepage
DEFRA's new Contingency Plan for FMD
Dr James Irvine
FRSE, DSc, FInstBiol, FRCPEd, FRCPath, FInstDirectors
Teviot Scientific, Edinburgh
Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire
(Filed 9 Dec 03)
© land-care.org.uk
DEFRA has published and put out for consultation
its latest Annual Review of Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan
(1). The closing date for responses is February
20, 2004.
It is a requirement under section 18 of the Animal
Health Act 2002, which came into force on March 24 2003, to review
and, where appropriate to revise, its FMD contingency plan at least
annually.
In drawing up this review it was necessary for
DEFRA to take account of the new EU directive on FMD control which
required to be included into UK legislation by June 30 2004. Central
to that EU directive is the need for emergency vaccination to be
considered as a prime controlling strategy. Indeed that is what
the FMD Inquiry Reports by the Royal Society (3),
by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (4) and
by other authorities (5) had previously
advocated.
So what progress has been made in terms of this
key defence strategy? Sadly the answer appears to be lamentable
- as witnessed by DEFRA's own press release, which summarises Animal
Health Minister Ben Bradshaw's letter to the Royal Society (6).
When reading his remarks it should be recalled that the epidemic
of FMD in the UK occurred in the Spring of 2001 and the various
reports mentioned above were published in the summer of 2002. In
another few months it will be three years since the outbreak. And
the excellent Northumberland Report of 1968 (7)
said a lot of what was repeated in the reports of 2002. So where
are we as 2004 approaches?
We would appear to be stuck at the starting line
with such statements as:
"engaging with stakeholders to gain the necessary support
from the farming and food industries to make emergency vaccination
a workable option in the event of a future outbreak"
Odd that this should come so high on the list
of so-called achievements. It would have been more logical to get
on with the application of vaccination and diagnostic science so
that the stakeholders could be informed of something tangible.
As a member of the public I for one have not been
aware of any activity on the part of the Food Standards Agency to
stress that vaccinated meat is perfectly safe to eat, and that the
public have been eating meat from cattle and sheep that have been
vaccinated for one disease or another for many years and in vast
quantities. When I asked one member of the FSA why this was so,
she replied that they had just not got around to it.
"procurement of independent supplies of Foot and Mouth Disease
vaccine for the UK, which is suitable for use in a "vaccinate-to-live"
strategy in the event of a future outbreak"
Does it really take this long to achieve this,
and if so why?
"ongoing work on the development of vaccination scenarios
including a Cost Benefit Analysis to help decision making on future
disease control strategy"
Again, does it really take this long to work out
the sums on the basis of current information? Is DEFRA still trying
to work out what the possible vaccination strategies might be? There
are only a finite number of possible options.
"continuing to fund research into tests that would demonstrate
the absence of infection in animals post-vaccination"
Just how much funding might that be and where
is it being placed? There would appear to be a striking silence
on the matter from UK based veterinary research institutes, but
then in Scotland at least the funding generally for such Institutes
has been seriously reduced as both Westminster and Holyrood continue
to undermine agriculture in favour of "the environment".
"putting in place operational arrangements with an external
contractor that would enable an emergency vaccination programme
to be implemented 5 days after confirmation of the disease, subject
to veterinary epidemiological advice"
There are serious problems here. Starting vaccination
5 days after confirmation of the disease is hardly an emergency
procedure in terms of controlling spread. Bear in mind that the
Minster was talking about 5 days after confirmation, which presumably
means laboratory confirmation. There is no mention as to how long
that confirmation will take and whether new next-to-farm technology
could speed it up. It would appear that samples would still have
to get transported to Pirbright and the old somewhat slow technology
used.
Why is it necessary to employ an independent contractor
to do the vaccinations, when the farms' own stockmen could do it
far quicker, probably better and be much more biosecure? Indeed
that is what has been the practice in other countries. It would
be a simple matter to check whether vaccinations had been done.
Consultation with Stakeholders
DEFRA gives a massive list of stackholders with
whom it consults, no doubt in a politically correct manner. But,
as in the UK 2001 FMD epidemic, DEFRA did not inform the stakeholders
with the reliable and accurate information that was required. The
same is likely to be happening again. So how can the stakeholders
make rational responses when they are not being properly informed
of the true international status of FMD vaccination and the diagnostic
tests that go with it?
What have the International Organisations being doing?
There seems to be a lack of a convenient source
of information as to the present state of affairs in terms of availability
of appropriate FMD vaccines and associated FMD diagnostic tests
that will facilitate a vaccinate-to-live policy. One wonders if
commercial interests and academic rivalry are major factors in this
apparent lack of openness.
Current reference to the EUFMD website did not
appear to disclose any new information, although surely trials must
have been progressing in a number of countries. Surely this information
is essential for a rational decision to be made on how best to use
"emergency vaccination". There is little point in trying
to look for that informationat the start of an outbreak when time
will be of the essence.
A service that DEFRA could perform is to have
regular updates on the relevant science and technical developments.
However, there is a great lack of trust in DEFRA and it might well
be better for a supposedly independent body - such as one of the
Royal Societies (London or Edinburgh) - to undertake this service
with their updates being open to credible and independent peer review.
When the international scientific response and
collaboration to the SARS virus is compared with that to FMD, one
has to ask the question as to why progress with regard to controlling
future outbreaks of FMD is so very slow (8).
Are we just going to get a repeat of the massive culling,
including the iniquitous contiguous cull based on faulty epidemiological
modelling?
Sadly the answer to this seems to be yes. The
Government seem to have organised the legality of it through section
32B of the Animal Health Act and appear to be doing their best to
limit compensation to farmers for doing so.
The UK seems to have lost the place in veterinary
science compared to what is going on in the rest of Europe and in
the States and Australia (9).
FMD exercises
DEFRA is planning to have more exercises to test
out their contingency planning. Certainly the one that SEERAD organised
close to Cultybraggan Farm in Scotland was a non-starter as far
as any consideration of emergency vaccination as prime controlling
strategy (10). "Immediately considering
vaccination as an option" does not get you anywhere if there
is no vaccination strategy already in place. It will result, as
before, with the banging of heads together and no sensible outcome
emerging - and anyway with that scenario it would be too late.
© www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. DEFRA (2003). Annual review
of Foot and Mouth Contingency Plan www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/fmd-contingency03/consultation.pdf
2. Editorial (2003). DEFRA adopts
new EU directive on control of Foot and Mouth Disease
See FMD Homepage,filed 07 October 03, www.land-care.org.uk, Click
Here to View
3. Royal Society (2002). Infectious
diseases in livestock.
www.royalsoc.ac.uk
4. Royal Society of Edinburgh
(2002). Inquiry into Foot and Mouth Disease in Scotland.
www.royalsoced.org.uk
5. FMD Inquiry Reports (Click
Here to View)
6. DEFRA (2003). News Release:
Dec 1 2003.
DEFRA announces progress on developing emergency vaccination as
an additional control strategy for foot and mouth disease and opens
consultation on a revision of the contingency plan.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/031201d.htm (Click
Here to View)
7. HMSO (1968). Northumberland
Committee Report on Foot and Mouth Disease.
8. Editorial (2003). SARS virus:
just look at the speed of progress.
See SCIENCE Homepage, filed 6 April 03, www.land-care.org.uk (Click
Here to View)
9. Irvine, James (2003). Comments
on the DEFRA: FMD special edition of State Veterinary Service Journal
See FMD Homepage, filed 19 Feb 03, www.land-care.org.uk (Click
Here to View)
10. Irvine, James and Marshall,
Mary (2003). FMD simulation exercise in Scotland:
Lessons are still to learned
See FMD Homepage, filed 8 Oct 03, www.land-care.org.uk (Click
Here to View) 10.
|
