TB reactors at Eatons Farm - latest

While few would argue against the need to remove cows with TB from a herd, the unreliability of the present skin test is throwing up many false positives - shown to be false only after slaughter. The interpretation of results in specific cases and the need for recognition that the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic tests can vary in field situations needs to be recognised and addressed. This is the recent story of one family who questioned the initial test result. By what legislation were their 2 reactor cows to be slaughtered, they wanted to know ; they were told - quite wrongly - that the legislation was the 2002 Animal Health Act.
They politely asked for a second test to confirm the result of June 30 2003 and offered to pay for this. What they got were tactics from DEFRA and Trading Standards reminsicent of the bullying, ignorance and bluff that shocked so many during the FMD crisis in 2001.

Jan 5 2006 ~ Council officials were forced to apply for a warrant

January 4 2006 ~ "That's why the vet came out, to put pressure on me to agree to it ...

Nov 24 2004 ~ Ben Bradshaw says "In 200203 we spent nearly £74 million on the bovine tuberculosis (TB) Five Point Plan.." - but there is to be no second test for the Morris family

Nov 19 ~ "This is actually far worse than Foot and Mouth"

Nov 11 - 18 ~ "There has got to be a better test"

Nov 11 - 18 ~"Kill your cows privately," DEFRA suggests

Nov 11 - 18 ~ DEFRA application for warrant withdrawn

Nov 3 - 10 ~ It appears that the Animal Health Act was cited to the Morris family as the legal basis for the killing of their cows.

Nov 3 - 10 ~ Legal intimidation, use of the Animal "Health" Bill to force slaughter

Nov 3 - 10 ~ Nicola Morris threatened with arrest over TB slaughter resistance