Reply from EUFMD, 13th January 2003

13 January 2003

Dear James

Wishing you a happy new year and to thank you for your continued interest and concern on the technical and policy developments in FMD control. I apologise for not replying to you earlier, and for the lack of updating of our EUFMD website which you are quite correct to question.

I agree this gives the appearance of inactivity when the reverse is the case. I have been almost continually travelling since arrival and there is a lot of pressure on the two of us (myself and my clerk) to service the field programs in FMD control, the research group recommendations and the FAO requirements. Nevetheless we must do better on this, although I have to say that we as a rule have in the past only published Commission proceedings rather than activities, the activities can be gained by reading the reports of the various meetings which give me a mandate for future activities.

To put you in the picture we organise one research group meeting a year and two executive ctte meetings, all of which go up on the web. The research group meeting in September was rather large and the report with annexes runs to 367 pages; I attach the Report (2), and you can see many of the annexes concern the familiar research focus on development of NSP tests etc. If you would like any of the papers in electronic form, until the web-site is updated, please contact Egiziana Fragiotta.

I also attach the report of the Executive Ctte Meeting in Vilnius in November which gives support to the findings of the research group (3).

We are addressing the issue of NSP tests through the area, to me of most concern, which is, as I explained to the RS of E, the critical issue of how do you use the tests in post-vaccination surveillance. Those who have been cautious or antipathetic to the use of NSP tests have usually based their arguments on the sensitivity of the tests, when it is actually the sensitivity of the whole system that should be considered - imperfect tests, as you know, can be used in combination with other tests, or through screening higher percentages of animals to achieve a level of sensivity that would ensure that numbers of false negative, “carrier” animals that remain are minimised -and numbers of such animals should be able to be estimated. There has been a reluctance to take this extra step for reasons that you are probably aware of. However through the EUFMD we are writing guidelines on how to adjust sampling in realtion to test performance, which should form part of the OIE guidelines for FMD surveillance. There is a pressure to do this (at last!!) by early Feb to go through the OIE Committees and then to be ratified by their General Session in May. I’m off to Copenhagen tomorrow on this task.

Wishing you well, and as ever, I’m hugely impressed by your activity, interest and web-site. Perhaps you could advise us further on ours!

Keith Sumption
Secretary of the European Foot-and-Mouth Commission
Animal Health Section
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
Rome
Tel: 39 06570 55528