Dear Mrs Redondo

 

I would like to make a complaint about Mr Gordon Adam who gave a small speech in the Forest of Dean meeting yesterday, Saturday 22nd June. Whilst I appreciate that all views should be heard, I was shocked that Mr Adam's knowledge seemed so lacking, or perhaps more truthfully, so politically motivated. He made the following statements within his speech:

 

"the bulk of the evidence that we have had in our committee has been quite clear that vaccination could not have been applied in the United Kingdom outbreak with any hope of bringing the disease under control"

 

"I also believe that vaccination has to be looked at in more detail, but it would not have worked in the circumstances that we had. I also have to tell you that without the culling policy the disease would not have been brought under control"

 

When I finally spoke to him after the meeting, he turned to me and said that vaccination did not work in Holland, and that they had to kill more animals per farm! This is an outrageous claim, and an old argument made by our own NFU and others a few months ago, which we have been trying to get them to withdraw ever since. 

 

Could I please ask if Gordon Adam can be passed the following statement. I would also like to request his resignation from the committee, as I suspect that there would be a majority vote of no confidence in Mr Adam's ability to assess the information given to the committee so far on the efficacy of vaccination (by Dr Keith Sumption, Professor Fred Brown, Frederick Plumiers and Kris de Clerq among others who all spoke in favour of vaccination among others) , and has not wanted to put to one side his political motives to view the work of the enquiry without prejudice.

 

If FMD does ever return to the United Kingdom, and the same control measures are applied as before, I shall make it my personal responsibility to ensure Mr Gordon Adam visits the farmgate along with me to witness at first hand the repeat of the intimidation, harassment and downright cruelty that was meted out by DEFRA to the farmers and the now dead animals last year.

 

Why Holland slaughtered, and killed more animals....

The Dutch were not obliged to slaughter all their vaccinated animals.  On the 23 March they were granted suppressive vaccination (where slaughter would follow) in a  2 km area round confirmed outbreaks.  In addition on 3 April they obtained permission for  protective vaccination, (vaccinated animals could live but would be prohibited from movement for at least one year).  The farmers, many of them dairy, were led to believe their animals would be allowed to live and thus agreed to the protective vaccination area being much wider than was truly necessary for control of the disease.  After vaccination was completed, their Government changed its mind and insisted on slaughtering the animals in a bid to qualify for normal trading after three months. Many farmers attempted to fight the slaughter in the courts and there was further public outcry. That was the main reason why their vaccination strategy created such a high number of animal deaths.  Not that vaccinating proportionately caused more slaughter, a myth freely peddled in this country now, whenever vaccination in the Netherlands is mentioned.