MENUAnimal
Health/ Economic/ Political
|
 |
FMD - Current Topic
Draft EU Directive on Vaccination Against FMD12th Sept 2002 According to a recent report in the Telegraph, a draft EU directive will give Brussels the power to decide whether or not to vaccinate in the face of an outbreak of FMD. To view the Telegraph article click here.
Editorial Comment14th Sept 2002 The Telegraph article (1) describes a draft new directive regarding the management of future outbreaks of FMD within the EU. According to this newspaper report the Commission will be able to order vaccination if infected livestock are not culled (slaughtered) within 24 hours and contiguous animals within 48 hours. In so far that such draft new legislation would obviously bring forward the use of FMD vaccination it is to be warmly welcomed. However, there must be concern that the new draft legislation allegedly includes the slaughtering of what are described as “contiguous” animals. If this means animals contiguous with infected animals on the same farm (premises) that may well be acceptable. If the word contiguous means animals on contiguous premises, that would raise serious doubts about the thinking of the Commission as to how best to control a future outbreak of FMD within Europe. The culling (slaughtering) of all animals on contiguous premises was a matter of serious debate within the various FMD Inquiries (2) set up after the UK FMD disaster of 2001. In these inquiries emphasis was placed on the importance of local knowledge in making an informed risk assessment. It is to be sincerely hoped that neither the culling of all animals on contiguous premises nor a 3 km cull would be repeated in the future. It is to be hoped that the EC will reinforce its own previous recommendation that FMD vaccination should be instituted "when FMD has been confirmed and threatens to become extensive" (3, para 10.1). For example, if the situtation occurred that by the time a new case of FMD was identified the disease had probably spreadly widely through transport of animals or other means, there is no point in waiting to see that culling cannot be completed within 24 or 48 hours, respectively. The deplorable delay times for slaughtering of animals on infected premises and on contiguous premises, together with the delay times for the disposal of their carcasses is illustrated in a table (Click here to view) taken from the Cumbria Inquiry (2) (chaired by Prof Phil Thomas) into the UK FMD outbreak 2001. It is to be noted that the Draft FMD Contingency Plan (2002) (4) from SEERAD makes scant reference to vaccination (RSE FMD Inquiry Report (2): paragraph 120) and in this regard is unacceptable. The DEFRA Interim Foot and Mouth Contingency plan (5) is likewise seriously lacking regarding DEFRA’s stance on vaccination (RSE FMD Inquiry Report (2): paragraph 120). The draft new directive is apparently a response to a year-long inquiry by the European Parliament, which has highlighted major shortcomings in British policy. Hopefully the alleged new EC directive on FMD vaccination referred to in the Telegraph article (1) will be formally published and will be open for debate.
References(1) Brussels to control the foot and mouth fight. The Telegraph, 12 September 2002 (view article) (2) Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries page on land-care.org.uk (open page) (3) National Contingency Plans: Recommendations for FMD contingency plans including actions in non-vaccinating countries. Published as Appendix 6 (i) to Report of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Rome, Italy, 27-30 April 1993. (Download report [doc]) (4) Scottish FMD Contingency Plan. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Agriculture Group. June 2002. (Download report [pdf]) (5) Interim Foot and Mouth Contingency plan. DEFRA. March 2002. (Download report [pdf])
Return to the FMD homepage for further reading and references. |