Already a subscriber? Log in
There is little to suggest that the government is going to make mistakes this time around on the scale they were made in 2001. In fact, the reaction of ministers has been calm and measured compared with that of some sections of the media, and of zoos which have needlessly closed their premises and of farmers in Durham, 300 miles away from the outbreak, who have been reported to be chasing people off their land. So far it appears that the three-kilometre protection zone and the ten-kilometre surveillance zone are doing their job in containing the disease. Moreover, Defra has been quick to investigate the possibility that the disease has been caused by leakage of air or water from the Animal Health Laboratory at Pirbright or the the nearby premises of Merial, a Franco-American veterinary business — an early report points to transmission via flooding of the sewage system from the site.
That said, there are a couple of aspects of the government’s handling of the current outbreak which concern us: first, why the infected animals could not be slaughtered on site rather than trucked to Somerset to be killed, and second, why vaccination has not been used. On the first point we wonder whether news management has not overruled common sense: were these animals taken on a long journey, on which they could have spread the infection far and wide, because of officials’ anxiety not to allow TV channels to capture images of animals being slaughtered?
Elsewhere in this magazine Charles Moore berates the government for not conducting an inquiry into the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth along the lines of the Northumberland inquiry into the outbreak of 1967. Defra did, however, in 2004 publish its contingency plan for future outbreaks of the disease, which addressed some of the glaring errors of 2001. One of the policies contained within it was that vaccination be considered alongside a policy of culling animals. This was recommended in a study by Dr Matt Keeling of the University of Warwick, and published in the journal Nature in 2003. Moreover, its effectiveness was proved in the Netherlands in 2001, where an outbreak was quickly snuffed out by vaccination of all animals within a three-kilometre ring of infected premises. As a result, Holland’s agriculture quickly returned to normal, while in Britain — where the Ministry of Agriculture had told us that vaccinating animals would be impossible because it would ruin our livestock industry for years afterwards — the epidemic spread for months afterwards. So why is Defra still dragging its heels over emergency vaccination of animals close to the affected farms?
If we are going to have regular outbreaks of foot-and-mouth, we are at some point going to have to consider routine vaccination of farm animals for foot-and-mouth — which would provide group immunity, preventing outbreaks turning into epidemics. Routine vaccination is at present banned by the EU on the grounds that it would damage consumer confidence in meat. But foot-and-mouth is endemic in many parts of the world, and is controlled there with vaccination. It is bizarre, given the quantity of antibiotics and other medicines we stuff into our farm animals, that Europe should take such a purist attitude against foot-and-mouth vaccination.
The growth of free trade has, admittedly, increased the dangers of inadvertently importing foot-and-mouth to Britain via infected meat. We do not advocate, as some do, using this as an excuse to erect damaging trade barriers to keep out foreign food (and which of course would result in retaliation). But it is silly that we still carry on fighting foot-and-mouth as if the rest of the world did not exist. We treat it as if it were some divine punishment which must be atoned through ritual slaughter — when experience from abroad shows it is just another disease which could adequately be controlled through science.
Also in Society
Also by The Spectator
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in