| Author (Person) | Carroll, Freda |
|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning |
| Series Title | In Focus |
| Series Details | 12.5.01 |
| Publication Date | 12/05/2001 |
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus |
|
In February 2001 foot-and-mouth disease broke out in the United Kingdom (UK). An immediate ban on all exports from the UK to the rest of the EU of live animals, fresh meat and meat products, milk and milk products and other animal products was imposed on 21 February 2001, but a number of cases were discovered in other European countries: one in Ireland, two in France, twenty five in the Netherlands, as well as four in Northern Ireland. This relatively small number was due to the immediate slaughter in most countries of thousands of animals imported from the UK since 1 February 2001. On 8 May 2001, the European Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC) lifted restrictions on the movement of pigs and cattle (but not of sheep and goats) in most European countries. All restrictions on the UK, however, would remain in force until 19 June 2001 (IP/01/663), and a further review of the situation. The decisions of the SVC were seen as reflecting growing confidence that the disease was being successfully contained in the UK - and would not spread further in mainland Europe. Background On 20 February 2001, a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Essex, the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in twenty years in the United Kingdom (UK), was confirmed by the Institute for Animal Health's Pirbright Laboratory. In the following sixteen weeks, there were more than 1,585 cases (as on 12 May 2001) (of which 682 were in the county of Cumbria, in North West England, alone) resulting in 2.5 million animals being slaughtered (or awaiting slaughter). This was unprecedented in the scale and speed of the outbreak. The last major epidemic in the UK lasted for seven months in 1967 when 434,00 animals were slaughtered. An 'epidemic simulation' provided by Causeway Graphical Systems Ltd. shows a simple mathematical answer to how epidemics are spread. On 3 May 2001, in a statement on the foot and mouth disease outbreak, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the outbreak had been brought under control, although further cases are likely to appear during the summer when dairy cattle leave their winter shelter and go out to graze. Since February there has been a heated debate on all the issues relevant to the disease: the causes, the rate of spread, the control measures used, their effect on other industries and on the environment, vaccination and modern farming methods resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy and the Internal Market. Control methods The FMD virus found in the UK was serotype O (the Pan-Asia strain belonging to the Middle East-South Asia (ME-SA), one of seven strains of FMD virus, with many sub-strains. FMD is a highly contagious viral disease, which is also wind-borne, affecting all cloven-hoofed animals (pigs, sheep, cattle and goats). Symptoms are blisters in the mouth and on the feet together with fever and shivering. Although not fatal, the effects are significant loss of weight and reduction of milk yield, resulting in economic losses to farmers. In the UK, the amended 1985 Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (Council Directive 85/511/EEC) were followed in order to stamp out the disease. 'Stamping out' involves quarantine, movement restrictions, slaughter of all affected or in-contact susceptible animals on premises, followed by disposal by rendering, incineration, burning on pyres or burial, then thorough disinfection of the premises. A period of quarantine with restrictions on the movement of both animals and people in the surrounding area is an important element of the control process. Any authorised movement, by vets or government officials, necessitates disinfection of shoes, boots and vehicle tyres. An immediate ban on all exports from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EU of live animals, fresh meat and meat products, milk and milk products and other animal products was imposed on 21 February 2001, but a number of cases were discovered in mainland European countries, and one in Ireland. Vaccination By 1990, FMD had been almost eradicated from Europe. Many third countries were imposing a ban on import of animals or animal products from countries where FMD was endemic or where vaccination was used to control it. In order to achieve "foot-and-mouth free" status recognised by the Office International des Epizooties (World Organisation for Animal Health) and so protect the Community's export market in animals and animal products and as part of the work of completing the internal market in goods, Council Directive 85/511/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease was amended in 1990 by Council Directive 90/423/EEC, which introduced a Community wide policy of non-vaccination. Since 1990, control of foot-and-mouth disease has depended on slaughter of infected animals. This 'stamping-out' policy can be supplemented by ring vaccination within 1km - 3km. Although protected against disease, vaccinated animals are not totally resistant and can still become infected and spread the virus. Revaccination at regular intervals (4-6 months) is necessary. A 1991 Decision (91/666/EEC) required the establishment of Community reserves of foot-and-mouth vaccines. The IAH Pirbright Laboratory in the UK holds reserves of 0.5 million doses of each of the seven strains of FMD. Three vaccination strategies are possible:
Disease-free status can be achieved twelve months after successful treatment of the last recorded case. The EU policy on vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease is to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible and keep economic damage to a minimum. It claims the most effective way is to slaughter and destroy infected or potentially infected animals. Vaccination can only be used within a radius of 1 km to 3 km around an infected herd as a temporary measure to stop the spread, but vaccinated animals must then be slaughtered. The Netherlands was allowed to use vaccination initially as it did not have the infrastructure for immediate mass slaughter and disposal. Germany considered asking the Commission for permission to vaccinate one million animals near its Dutch border as a means of preventing the disease from spreading to Germany, but there was opposition from other regions fearful of losing the disease-free status. If large-scale vaccination were introduced, third countries would prohibit the importation of all live animals from the EU, which would lead to severe losses in trade and employment. It is also claimed that it is impossible to distinguish between an infected animal and one that has been vaccinated and that vaccinated animals, although free of the disease, may be carriers. Many of these claims have been disputed in the intense debate that has accompanied this epidemic, especially when apparently healthy animals and rare breeds were included in the cull, so as to preserve the export status. Preventive vaccination (with the Commission's permission) could have been an option. The vaccination debate has seen a clash of arguments about science, ethics, exports and efficiency. Contiguous cull of healthy animals Government policy in the UK was changed in April 2001 when a Statement from Professor David King, the Government's Chief Scientist on controlling foot and mouth disease, 19 April, announced that in future the two key elements in the strategy for controlling the foot and mouth epidemic would be:
Although general rules for FMD control are outlined in the two Directives 85/511/EEC and 90/423/EEC, specific permission must be obtained from the Commission for other actions, such as vaccination, emergency slaughter of healthy animals or contiguous culling, in individual cases in local areas. The Commission is assisted in its work by scientific and regulatory committees which respond to the Commission's request for advice or an opinion. The relevant regulatory committee is the Standing Veterinary Committee and Commission Decisions made, acting on the SVC's advice, during the present outbreak are listed in Foot-and-mouth disease: overview of measures taken. Despite challenges from the tourist industry, the media and individual citizens, the European Commission, acting on the advice of its Standing Veterinary Committee and the UK government, acting on the advice of its Chief Scientist, have remained unanimous that slaughter of both infected and contiguous healthy animals is the best method for controlling the spread of the disease. The National Farmers' Union, which has supported this view despite protests from some its members, has summarised many of the problems and uncertainties about vaccination in its NFU position on vaccination against foot and mouth disease. The EU policy on vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease is expanded in the Commission's Questions and answers on vaccination policy of the EU . Impact on tourism and other industries While many farmers have seen their whole stock destroyed, their source of income removed (about £50 million per week in the UK) and may lose their farms, the closure of large areas of the countryside has also had a deleterious impact on tourism, especially rural tourism, and other rural industries. The tourist industry was losing £200 million per week and its representatives questioned the methods used to protect agricultural exports which are of less economic value than the revenue generated by tourism. Compensation for loss of income was demanded. In December 2000, there were 44.4 million cattle, sheep and pigs in the UK. Exports were worth about £630 million in 2000. In a Comparison of agriculture with tourism in the UK, the English Tourism Council claimed that agriculture makes a relatively small contribution to the national economy (0.9&percent; of GDP) and employs about 557,000 people or 1.5&percent; of the workforce. Tourism on the other hand employs 7&percent; of the workforce and represents 4&percent; of GDP. The growth rate for tourism in 1996-99 was 26&percent;, compared with agriculture's 21&percent;. On the other hand, agriculture has an importance for the national economy greater than these figures suggest. Farmers manage 75&percent; of the land which is important for the environment. The countryside landscape is of great value to rural tourism. Agriculture is also the basis of a food industry which represents 6.7&percent; of GDP and employs 3.3 million workers. The government's campaign, run from 10, Downing Street and using the recently established News Co-ordination Centre to provide information about FMD, was initially concerned with advising people to stay away from the countryside. As complaints from the tourist and rural industries grew, a new web-site OpenBritain was launched to provide information for tourists and visitors about facilities and attractions which are still available or have recently been opened to the public. In its Assistance to tourism businesses, the UK government announced a package of measures to help businesses affected by FMD. These included postponing the payment of business rates, national insurance contributions or tax and advice about sources of small loans. Grants of up to £15,000 for rural businesses to help them recover from the impact of FMD were announced on 8 May 2001. Lessons to be learned Urgent lessons need to be learnt from the epidemic which has been a national disaster for the UK. The initial cause may have been illegally imported infected meat used in pigswill, although the problem was exacerbated by the movement of animals over long distances between farms as well as to slaughterhouses. At times blame was laid at the door of Customs and Excise for failing to control imports, at the supermarkets for the demands they make of farmers, and the European Union whose Common Agricultural Policy encourages an intensive, industrial approach to farming and whose 1990 decision ended preventive vaccination against FMD. A review is needed of the possible factors contributing to the spread of the disease and of the methods used to control it. The new European Food Authority is planning to address the problems of crisis management and also to attempt to reconcile conflicting scientific opinions. As animal health is part of its remit, any future outbreak of FMD may be better managed. At the Agriculture Council meeting on 24 April 2001, it was agreed that:
It also 'noted' the proposal from the governments of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom that a conference be organised on FMD and the lessons to be learned from the current outbreak. The prospect of mass vaccinations and huge compensation claims is intensifying the debate over the direction of farm policy. It may lead to the early reform of the agricultural budget, already stretched to breaking point by the BSE crisis. The EU will have to pay 50&percent; of compensation paid to farmers for emergency slaughter measures, although these payments cannot be paid until 2002, as the 2001 allocation is already committed to existing claims. Governments could also face further monetary demands for loss of income on quarantined farms which are kept devoid of animals for months following the outbreaks, from rural industries and tourist businesses in the areas most affected. Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Critics of current farm policy say the spread of the disease was encouraged by precisely the intensive practices they want to reform. The density of animals on farmland is a factor as well as the transport of animals between specialised rearing / fattening farms and finally to larger cheaper slaughterhouses. The experience of BSE and FMD has rallied opinion across Europe against the sort of factory farming that the CAP encourages. Germany is now leading the move for reform of the expensive, market-distorting policy which encourages industrial-scale farming, and is recommending a change towards more sustainable, ethical, environmentally friendly agriculture. Enlargement of the EU to include countries with large agricultural sectors (Spain, Portugal and Greece) made reform difficult in the past; current enlargement negotiations with central European countries must lead to some reform, as otherwise the CAP would be prohibitively expensive in anything like its present form. Furthermore, the EU will be under pressure to reduce its agricultural subsidies and protections in the forthcoming world trade talks. In 2002 there will be an interim review of the CAP's performance and Germany will be supported by other countries (UK, Italy, Sweden and Denmark, at least) in its goal to move resources away from market-support measures and direct payments to farmers towards a rural development policy, part-funded by member states, that provides quality over quantity and encourages good environmental practices. Although the number of animals slaughtered in the UK is large (2.5 million), it is a relatively small proportion of the total number alive in December 2000 (44.4.million). The FMD experience may provide a unique opportunity to re-think how the affected farms could be re-stocked and managed in the future, provide an example to the other EU Member States and possibly inform debate on the future of farming in the European Union. Further information within European Sources Online: European Sources Online: Topic Guide European Sources Online: European Voice To find earlier and subsequent articles in European Voice, carry out an 'Advanced Search' in European Sources Online and enter 'foot-and-mouth' in the Keyword field and '“European Voice”' in the Series Title field. European Sources Online: Financial Times To find earlier and subsequent articles in Financial Times, carry out an 'Advanced Search' in European Sources Online and enter 'foot-and-mouth' in the Keyword field and '“Financial Times”' in the Series Title field. European Sources Online: In Focus Further information can be seen in these external links European Commission: DG Health and Consumer Protection European Commission: DG Agriculture. European Commission / AEIDL European Parliament European Commission: Press and Communication Service: SCADPLUS: Union Policies European Commission: Press and Communication Service: EUROPA European Commission: UK Representation: European Commission: Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection European Commission: EUR-OP: EUR-LEX: Legislation in Force European Commission: EUR-OP: EUR-LEX: Community preparatory acts: Commission proposals European Commission: Secretariat General: PreLex European Parliament: DG I: OEIL (Legislative Observatory) Council of the European Union European Parliament European Commission: Press and Communication Service Further Press Releases, and related sources, on Consumer and Health Protection and Agriculture are available. FT.com BBC News Online European Commission / AEIDL United Nations: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Office International des Epizooties (OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health) Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) United Kingdom: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) United Kingdpm: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions United Kingdom: Institute of Animal Health United Kingdom: National Farmers' Union United Kingdom: National Pig Association United Kingdom: Meat and Livestock Commission United Kingdom: English Tourism Council United Kingdom: 10, Downing Street United Kingdom: Northern Ireland: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development France: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Netherlands: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries Ireland: Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Germany: Federal Ministry for Food Agriculture and Foresty Further and subsequent information on foot and mouth disease can be found by an 'Advanced Search' in European Sources Online by inserting 'foot and mouth' in the keyword field. Freda Carroll In February 2001 foot-and-mouth disease broke out in the United Kingdom (UK). An immediate ban on all exports from the UK to the rest of the EU of live animals, fresh meat and meat products, milk and milk products and other animal products was imposed on 21 February 2001. |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry |
