Search | Site Info | Site Map

MENU

HOMEPAGE

Animal Health/
Welfare/Zoonoses

Environment

Land Reform

Social/
Economic/
Political

Food

Science

Fishing

Tourism

Education

Cultybraggan
Farm

Trade

Book Reviews

Light Relief

Links

Glossary

Correspondence

Vacancies

Contact Us

Get Acrobat Reader

 

 

Back to TSE Homepage

24 March 2003

Post-mortem Tests for BSE in Cattle:
Further Correspondence with Prof Wilesmith

(Filed 24 March 2003)

© www.land-care.org.uk

In view of the greatly improved figures for BSE in the UK cattle heard, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced that it was considering ways whereby the Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS) for cattle could be relaxed or abandoned (1).

Land-Care published a follow-up article (2) which included correspondence with Prof Neil Ferguson and Prof John Wilesmith.

The present article publishes further correspondence between the Editor of Land-Care and Prof Wilesmith. Land-Care is most grateful to Prof Wilesmith for responding so promptly and clearly.

 

Friday 21 March 2003

Dear Professor Wilesmith

Tests for BSE

I would like to thank you for your help with the points raised by Land-Care. Your informative response is much appreciated.

In writing the follow-up article on the FSA debate concerning OTMS, I have made the comment:

“When assessing the practical application of a test, it would be standard practice in the field of clinical medicine to do the assessment in two stages. The first stage would be to do what is described in ref 3, whereby known positive and negative samples were sent to participating laboratories. The second stage would be to see how the tests actually work out in routine practice. What seems to me to be lacking is any documented evidence of the latter. Many tests behave well under test conditions, but fail to live up to expectations when all the hassles, inconveniences and slip-ups of routine practice come into play.”

Are there any references as to how the three recommended post-mortem tests perform in routine practice?

Again, thank you for your interest.

Regards

Dr James Irvine
Editor www.land-care.org.uk
Email: editor@land-care.org.uk

 

Reply from Prof Wilesmith
21 March 2003

Dear Dr Irvine

Thank you for your E-mail and relating your comment to me.

I agree with the latter and indeed as a lab we have done this and I categorise this as examining the robustness of the diagnostic method. We obviously have an enormous archive of material to examine the robustness of the current methods as well as examining the results of the prospective surveillance in this respect.

In my experience little is published on this aspect and sometimes this is because various commercial confidential issues emerge. I doubt that the results of our work which is the responsibility of our Biotechnology Transfer Unit will be published, but we have selected the tests we use on their robustness and not just the results of evaluations.

The EC is about to approve two further tests at least and they have extended their basic evaluation to include an examination of the performance of one of the more technically complex methods in various labs around Europe, quite an undertaking as it has involved transporting the equipment around the labs. I expect that this work will be published if only on the website.

I am sorry that I cannot provide any published literature from our work.

With best wishes.

John Wilesmith
Head of the Epidemiology Department
Veterinary Laboratories Agency (Weybridge)
New Haw
Addlestone
Surrey
KT15 3NB
Fax No: +1932 349983
Tel: + 1932 357 618

 

Comment

The FSA wish to consult with the public as to what should be done about the OTMS: that is to say, to what extent it can be relaxed. Essential to such a debate is clarity of the evidence put forward for the public to consider. It would be easier for the public to respond if the basis for the epidemiological models being used were properly explained, rather than that they will be told in a few months time. The excuse that such matters are awaiting peer review and then publication in scientific journals, should not hold today. With regard to science of major significance to the welfare of the public (and indeed to the Treasury), it should not now be overly difficult to get a peer-review done promptly - a matter of days or weeks. Thereafter, the paper or papers can be published on-line - again within days - whilst preserving intellectual property rights.

If the public are to be convinced that the present system for testing for BSE is sufficient to ensure that older UK cattle can now safely enter the food chain, convincing documentation should be available in the public domain to that effect. That means peer-reviewed presentation of the analysis of tests that are in the second stage of assessment: i.e. how do they perform in routine practice.

These are the standards that apply in human clinical and laboratory medicine. I see no reason why they should be different for matters relating to the Food Standards Agency.

© www.land-care.org.uk

 

References

1. Irvine, James (2003). The Food Standards Agency reviews the OTMS rule - are they going to scrap it?
(Filed 12 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

2. Irvine, James (2003). Food Standards Agency Review of OTMS: a follow up.
(Filed 12 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

 

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

Irvine, James (2003). Where has UK Biotechnology Gone?
(Filed 21 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).

Detection of Prions: Developing Technology
(Filed 12 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk, click here to view).