| Back to
FMD Homepage
Is the FMD situation in Surrey
descending
into farce?
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 08 Aug 07
www.land-care.org.uk
So where are we on the morning of 8th August,
some 5 days after the official confirmation of the first outbreak
of FMD in the UK since the catastrophe of 2001?
Firstly, it took too long to
make that official confirmation. The diligent farmer had reported
that his cattle might be showing the clinical signs of Foot and
Mouth Disease (FMD) on the previous Thursday, but the Defra officials
thought it was too dark to take samples. So they came back the next
morning and took them then, announcing their positive findings that
evening.
So almost 24 hours was lost. It is remarkable
that a forensic science specialist being interviewed on BBC TV in
terms of the missing Madeline child said that it was perfectly possible
to do an accurate DNA analysis on the smallest sample of blood within
3 hrs. It is known, that using the right technology it is perfectly
possible to get a secure diagnosis of an FMD infection within that
time scale. And the suspected site of the FDM infection in this
case was right on their doorstep.
Secondly, the authorities rightly
immediately notified the EU and shut down all livestock movements
throughout the UK and set up Protected and Surveillance Zones. They
have been widely praised for that. But the reality is that if they
had not done so they would probably have landed in the goal, and
the UK would have been very heavily fined by the EU for not obeying
the clearest of EC Directives. But they failed to close the public
pathways within the Protected Zone. A Defra spokesperson was heard
to proclaim:
"there is scientific evidence that FMD
was not spread by the public using pathways and other forms of access
to the countryside".
I am not aware of any such scientific evidence,
and would find it very difficult to understand as to how such unequivocal
evidence could be obtained in relation to UK FMD 2001, or any other
outbreak. Indeed, The Royal Society of Edinburgh in its Inquiry
into FMD in Scotland in 2001, recommended that the countryside should
be closed to the public until the nature of the outbreak was better
understood. That recommendation was over ruled by the Scottish Executive,
but as I recall they produced no clear evidence to support their
stance. it was a political decision.
But when it comes to pathways within the Protected
Zone, it is absurd not to close them. In Surrey, horses and people
were gaily going up and down next to farms that were waiting with
extreme anxiety whether they were going to be next to get the clinical
manifestations of FMD in their livestock. Five days later the pathways
were closed to the public.
Thirdly, from the time lapse
between taking samples and getting results, it is clear that modern
technology is not being extensively used. I refer to mobile PCR
technology, with reagents supplied. All that is needed in the first
instance is to detect the presence of the virus, whatever its type.
That should not be a difficult technical problem and should be completed
in a matter of just a few hours at the most..Thus the essential
benefits that come from rapid diagnosis were not being used.
Fourthly, nothing has been heard
about looking for live virus in livestock within the Protected Zone,
before clinical signs appeared, let alone in the Surveillance Zone.
To wait for clinical signs is to wait too long, The incubation period
is 7 - 14 days. During that time the affected animal will show no
clinical signs but will be shedding virus. May be the authorities
were doing these tests and just not telling us about them. Good
communication - warts and all - is essential for good public cooperation
and for the cooperation of farmers.
Fifthly, the proximity of the
outbreak to the only facility in the land that handles FMD virus
should have raised immediate serious suspicion as to the source
of the outbreak. The Health and Safety Executive got round to issuing
a preliminary report yesterday,Tuesday the 7th August: no less than
5 days since the observant farmer reported his concern to Defra.
And what did the H & E come up with? That the source was likely
to be one or other of the two plants at Pribright: the IAH Laboratories
that are government owned, or Merial's vaccine production facility
that is privately owned. So what did they do? They shut down Merial's
vaccine production activities and let the OAH Laboratories carry
on. Just what would have happened if they had closed down the IAH
Laboratories? There would not be any place to do the work of defining
the precise nature of the virus, or helping in the control of its
spread. The media then took this to mean that the authorities were
pointing the finger at Merial. So we are left with one of the suspects
doing the investigative work required to determine who is to blame,
including itself. The other extraordinary thing here is that the
UK government have just ordered 300,000 doses of vaccine for possible
use in this outbreak. But the factory that is best placed to make
it has just been closed down whilst strongly protesting their innocence.
Nevertheless, it is understood that the EU vaccine
bank may have a store of vaccine against 01 BFS 67. Whether this
is modern type marker vaccine is not known. Information on this
key bit of information is hard to get. If effective vaccine is available,
then it is simply a matter of formulating it and bottling it - a
2 day task.
Sixthly, can one really trust
the Government when one of its own establishments, that it has been
seriously under funding in recent years, is in the firing line,
when there is a convenient scapegoat in the form of a highly successful
private industry that could take the blame. What pressures are there
on the Health and Safety Government Agency to come up with a convenient
report? What pressures are there on any scientist who is supported
by government to say the right things?
IAH Laboratories at Pirbright have an unhealthy
monopoly. It is high time that internationally they had more competition
as to their effective performance.
©www.land-care.org.uk
|
