Alan has now written again to Ben Bennett at DEFRA, Exeter. The
full correspondence is included below to place this into context:
Dear Mr Bennett,
Another matter that is now concerning many small farmers, having survived
the both the disease and the contiguous cull, is the prospect of re-stocking
on slaughtered premises. I have read the newsletter no. 11 which provides
an outline of the procedures involved but it does not address the central
issue for neighbouring farms i.e. what happens in the worst case scenario of
sentinel animals contracting FMD? Is the affected farm once again
declared
an Infected Premises, with all that implies for neighbouring farms? Will
DEFRA try to impose the already discredited contiguous cull once more?
It is important that DEFRA make a clear statement on this issue at the
earliest opportunity so that the many farmers at risk will know where they
stand.
I look forward to hearing from you in this regard.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beat
Dear Mr Beat
In response to your e-mail I would wish to state the following :
If sentinel animals on restocked farms were found to have FMD the premises
would be defined as an Infected Premises and in these circumstances it would be
necessary to assess the contiguous farms to see if culling would also need to
be carried out on these premises. Far from being discredited, the contiguous
cull has been demonstrated as being highly effective in the limitation of the
spread of disease. Scientific opinion will vary, as always, on such matters but
one opinion need not necessarily be correct merely because one agrees with its
conclusions.
Yours sincerely
Ben Bennett
Today's message:
Dear Mr Bennett,
Thanks for your reply on the position following re-stocking. I confess
surprise at your comments on this, and also on the subject of the contiguous
cull. I must now pursue both points further.
Taking the contiguous cull first, it is agreed that scientific opinion varies,
but you will recall that I have requested from you the scientific evidence that
supports this concept, and that the references that you subsequently supplied
were a paper by Anderson's Imperial College team and an article describing the
views of David King. Unfortunately neither of these supply any scientific
evidence of an independent nature, since both Anderson and King have a direct
personal interest in the contiguous cull policy; and whilst these men are both
scientists eminent in their respective fields, namely epidemiology and
chemistry, neither have any expertise in veterinary science in general nor foot
and mouth disease in particular.
I have sought the views of those scientists who are highly qualified in the
relevant fields and find that they do not support the contiguous cull.
Paul Kitching, ex-Pirbright; Alex Donaldson of Pirbright; and Fred Brown of
Plum Island USA are regarded as among the world's leading authorities on this
disease. All three have criticised the contiguous cull as unnecessary, as
having no basis in veterinary science, and as having serious flaws in the
assumptions upon which the policy was originally based.
In more practical terms, of 150 premises I have traced where the contiguous
cull was refused, mostly here in Devon, only one actually went on to develop
clinical FMD, while all the rest are now progressively being cleared by blood
testing.
It is therefore reasonable to say that the contiguous cull is discredited on
both scientific and empirical grounds. If you are able to supply evidence
to the contrary, I would be most interested to see it.
Moving on to the re-stocking of previously infected premises, it is
extraordinary that DEFRA should propose to proceed on the basis that you
describe. Whilst the risk of sentinel animals developing disease may be
relatively low, it remains a risk nevertheless and DEFRA is both morally and
legally obliged to manage that risk in accordance with best practise.
That means carrying out a detailed veterinary assessment of the premises with a
view to containing any possible disease within the boundary of the premises by
means of appropriate physical barriers, for example an unstocked strip of land
against outside boundaries, in conjunction with appropriate biosecurity
measures; all of this along the lines of the rare breeds "exemption from
slaughter" rules that DEFRA unilaterally imposed when the perceived risk
lay in the opposite direction. There will also need to be a written
agreement with any stocked neighbouring premises detailing these security
measures, with an undertaking from DEFRA that it will not seek to apply any
form of contiguous culling in the event that disease is re-identified on the
original infected premises.
It may be that neighbouring premises will also be able to take their own
additional security measures, such as leaving boundary fields unstocked for the
first few critical weeks following re-stocking, and this can be agreed between
the parties in advance; but there can be no question of the
neighbouring premises being placed at risk of slaughter either by DEFRA's own
action, or by its deliberate inaction.
It often seems to those of us "on the ground" that desk-bound DEFRA
employees are oblivious to the suffering that they have inflicted, not just
upon livestock, but upon their fellow human beings as well. Among many
others, my wife and I have been subjected to indescribable trauma over the past
few months, and have been forced to devote a huge amount of our time and
emotional energies to saving our small sheep flock from unjustified
slaughter. Now that we are finally clear of this threat, after months of
uncertainty, any proposal to push us back into the shadow of the contiguous
cull once again is both inhuman and morally obscene.
I refuse to accept this situation and respectfully suggest that you think
again.
Yours sincerely
Alan Beat
Our comment: We have copied this correspondence to Alayne Addy
for her legal opinion and will keep you posted on this.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Betty has sent in this message from Holland:
We had a phone call from the editor in chief of a big newspaper in Holland.
He posed the question: is there a hidden agenda in England.
We called our informant in Brussels who told us:
England signed the WTO agreement stating that from 2005 23% of the
consumption should be imported, if not there would be a very large penalty.
England has a surplus of sheep therefore FMD was and is most welcomed.
Is there any truth in this?
ENDS
Bryn is not amused by Mr Morley's antics!:
Dear
friends,
There is a
minister we pay a considerable salary to and in my humble
opinion does not deserve one penny of it.
We even
give him the title, "Agriculture Minister".
This man is
meant to know what the hell he is doing, as a professional, yet he comes up
with this astounding statement related to the slaughter in the Brecon
Beacons,
"Morely said vaccination had not been ruled out.
``Vaccination remains an option to us,'' he said. He then added: ``Vaccination
is a problem in sheep. I'm not aware of any
country that does vaccinate sheep in relationship to foot and mouth.''
Many of you
will know he is talking a load of dross, and must qualify for one of the
most ignorant Ministers to hold office; to lessen his ignorance of vaccination
in sheep - in relationship to FMD - let me share with you just TWO
countries not too far away that do just that. Countries less well endowed
with cash, countries whose government have not looted the public purse of
#BILLIONS to control FMD.
I cannot
inform Morley myself, because he has barred my email messages to him after I
asked too many questions !
Perhaps one
of you can enlighten the Agricultural Minister (ha ! what a bloody joke) he
needs to go back to school.
Perhaps an
educational visit to KAZAKHSTAN is in order to see how humanely they treat animals.
Best
wishes,
Ref : http://www.oie.int/eng/info/hebdo/a_current.htm
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN
TURKEY
In Thrace region (follow-up report No. 2: end of the outbreak)
See also: 13
July 2001, 6
July 2001
Information received on 20 July 2001 from Dr H|seyin Sungur, General
Director of Protection and Control, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs,
Ankara:
End of previous report period: 10 July 2001 (see Disease
Information, 14 [28], 176, dated 13 July 2001).
End of this report period: 20 July 2001.
According to the results of surveillance, the disease has ended in the
region.
A total of 7,547 cattle and 7,020 sheep
and goats in 12 villages around the outbreak have been vaccinated with trivalent foot and mouth disease
vaccine.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN KAZAKHSTAN
Follow-up report No. 2 (end of the outbreak)
See also: 6 July
2001, 8 June
2001, 28 July
2000, 30 June 2000,
9 June 2000
Translation of information received on 23 July 2001 from Dr Shakhaidar
Tursunkulov, Director, Veterinary Surveillance Department, Ministry of
Agriculture, Astana:
End of previous report period: 18 June 2001 (see Disease
Information, 14 [27], 172, dated 6 July 2001).
End of this report period: 20 July 2001.
Total number of animals in the outbreaks (updated data):
|
species |
susceptible |
cases |
deaths |
destroyed |
slaughtered |
|
bov |
1,057 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
ovi |
469 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
sui |
190 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Causal agent: foot and mouth
disease virus type O1.
Control measures during reporting period:
- the relevant services have been informed;
- movement restrictions in the localities of Mirny (Osakarovka district) and
Koiandy (Tselinograd district) and in the zone at risk (30 km around the
outbreaks), with a ban on the entry, exit and transit of goods;
- vaccination of all animals
in the outbreaks and the zones at risk;
- cleaning and disinfection of the affected farms;
- sick animals are euthanised
and their cadavers destroyed by incineration.
Total number of vaccinations
performed in the country
|
|
Primary vaccination |
Booster vaccination |
|
Cattle |
934,647 |
138,779 |
|
Sheep/Goats |
804,856 |
27,092 |
Kazakhstan declares freedom from foot and
mouth disease in livestock.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMD
- UPDATE 20
Richard North (Dr)
Research Director EDD (European Parliament)
29 July 2001
Livestock depopulation
There have been many rumours, not least following a recent report in Farmers
Guardian, of the existence of an EU livestock depopulation fund, that there
is a sinister EU plot to wipe out the UK livestock industry.
While it is easy to believe that any manner of evils emanate from the
European Union, it has to be said that there is no evidence of such a fund
existing. Should there have been, there would have had to have been
Council
approval, promulgated by way of a Decision. No such Decision has been
published and it is unlikely that it could have been made. This type of
'support' to member states is highly contentious - both the Netherlands and
France have applied to the EU for similar funds and have been refused. Had
the UK been granted additional funding, I am sure that both these countries
would have kicked up an enormous stink, which could hardly have passed
unnoticed.
Furthermore, it should be remembered that, at the last but one Agriculture
Council meeting, measures were put in place to reduce the beef surplus, not
least of which was decreasing the permissible stocking rate for the beef
extensification premium. However, the Council exempted the UK from the
provisions, because of its FMD crisis.
What makes the rumour that much more implausible, however, is that there is
no need for the EU to promote a reduction in UK livestock when Her Majesty's
Government seems to be quite keen on doing the job without any external
funding.
In this context, it should be remembered that, just over two years ago, a
mass cull of sheep was on the cards because of the collapse in ewe prices.
In September 1999, the Meat and Livestock Commission presented MAFF with
a #6
million ewe slaughter plan which the then minister, Nick Brown, considered
had 'some merit'. Private storage aid was also being proposed.
As it was, the slaughter plan did not go ahead because permission was not
given by the EU. But the problem did not go away and the UK was left with
a
structural sheep surplus and no means of remedying the situation. Thus,
foot-and-mouth disease actually presented HMG with an opportunity of reducing
the sheep population, paying compensation to slaughter animals which in more
normal times would have been declared illegal by the EU. One wonders
whether
this is one more reason why the government was so reluctant to vaccinate.
Furthermore, one can also see in this a reason why the NFU should also have
been against vaccination, and so very much in favour of slaughter. As
late
as 11 February 2000, Bell Gill - alongside economist Sean Rickard - in a
presentation on financial support for farmers (published on the FWI website)
- argued that 'Ultimately, supply must be reduced which means less farmers,
and the sooner the necessary adjustment is made the more security there will
be for those better managed, lower cost enterprises'. Clearly, Gill
would
be quite happy to see a number of small farmers driven out of business, to
leave the pickings to his 'low cost' - i.e., bigger - enterprises. FMD
has
provided the opportunity.
But there is quite possibly another, as yet undeclared agenda. Although
many
people have remarked on the uneasy fit between agriculture and environment,
with their shotgun marriage in DEFRA, a certain commonality of purpose
emerged earlier this month.
On the 22 July, Mrs Margaret Beckett, the nearest thing we have to an
agriculture minister, was in Bonn. But she was not on agricultural
business.
Instead, she had been at the all-night climate change talks where,
amongst
other things, amendments to the Kyoto protocal were agreed, not least of
which were the use of 'carbon-sinks' as a means of offsetting carbon dioxide
emissions in order to reduce 'global warming'. One mechanism for
providing
carbon sinks is, of course, massive forestation.
It would thus suit Mrs Beckett fine if the hills were stripped of livestock
and trees were planted in their stead, helping the government to meet its
Kyoto obligations. This would explain DEFRA's enthusiasm for slaughtering
the hefted sheep on the Brecons and the mass slaughter of Cumbrian and
Scottish sheep. It also augers ill for the flocks on the North Yorks
Moors.
Another 'straw in the wind' is the recent Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds report entitled Futurescapes: Large Scale Habitat Restoration for
Wildlife and People - featured in the current edition of the Observer.
This
calls for 400,000 acres of farmland to be 'returned to nature', and the
creation of 250,000 acres of new woodland. Interestingly, nothing of this
was mentioned earlier this month at the RSPB conference on agriculture and it
seems just too much of a coincidence that the report should appear so soon
after the climate-change summit.
How convenient it is that the RSPB should ague that, 'rather than paying
farmers to restock uplands, such as the Lake District, with sheep that nobody
wants to buy, large parts of it should be returned to its natural habitat of
woodland, heather and gorse for tourists and visitors to enjoy'.
One wonders if public opinion is being softened up. With the right 'spin'
from NuLab about reducing global warming and saving the environment, and the
overt support of key conservation groups - plus the drip of anti-farmer
propaganda, such as the current publicity on farmers spreading FMD- and there
is a distinct possibility that the elimination of hill farming could become
acceptable to the general public. Instead of farmers being linked with
the
'environment' they would be linked with global warming and habitat
destruction and their elimination would be seen as a 'good thing'.
Perversely, this would explain the sudden rush of interest in vaccination to
create a firebreak around Thirsk, thus protecting the pigs of Humberside and
Lincolnshire - these areas would not be on the list for forestation.
Putting two and two together - and possibly making five - there begins to
emerge an interesting - if not sinister - possibility that foot-and-mouth
disease is being used as a cover to depopulate the hills. But this is not
an
EU conspiracy - albeit that the Community would be happy to see it happen.
The plot - if it exists - is entirely home-grown.
ENDS
From the warmwell website:
July 30th ~ On Newsnight (July 29) Roger Eddy (President of RCVS) was heard
to say that vaccination
was now sensible and that there is
no justification whatsoever for not eating vaccinated meat. Close followers of
the crisis will share surprise at this sudden volte face.
ENDS
From the Yorkshire Post:
|
Pig
cull starts as Vale is threatened |
|
|
|
ONE of the biggest foot and mouth culls in the region was
underway in North Yorkshire yesterday as the Government ordered the slaughter
of nearly 9,000 pigs to reinforce its determination to stop the virus spreading
across the Vale of York.
The sows and piglets, valued at more than #500,000, are on a
high security, disease free, intensive breeding unit at the Second World War
bomber airfield at Skipton-on-Swale, between the A1 and Thirsk.
The 1,000 breeding sows, 1,500 piglets and 6,150 larger
pigs, some of which were on an adjoining free-range outdoor unit near Sand
Hutton, are being slaughtered and taken in a fleet of sealed lorries to
Lancaster to be rendered.
Ministry vets, who began supervising the slaughter on Saturday,
have not found any sign of infection in the animals during the first two days
of the operation, but they are being killed as a precaution because the unit is
regarded as a dangerous contact.
Their owner, Robin Bosomworth and his son, Trevor, had 211
cattle slaughtered at Abbotts Close Farm at Sutton Road, Thirsk, after foot and
mouth disease was confirmed there on Friday. Nearly 300 cattle had to be
slaughtered at their home at Marderby Hall.
Confirmation of the disease among the cattle meant the
slaughter of the pigs was inevitable even though they are eight miles away.
Richard Lister, a pig farmer from Boroughbridge, said: "I know Trevor and
his father have run the enterprises separately and there has been no contact
involving staff or machinery for at least a month.
"They have done everything they could to separate the
units. I know Trevor was desperately hoping they would save something, but the
Ministry had no real alternative given the pressure they are under to keep the
disease out of the Vale of York."
A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs said it was one of the largest groups of animals they had dealt
with in the region. "The vets will continue to look for signs of disease
as they go along but we are hopeful they will not find any.
"The pigs had to be slaughtered because of the
dangerous contact. We cannot take any chances because if pigs get the disease
they become foot and mouth factories and the virus is spread rapidly."
ENDS
More from the warmwell site:
#40,000 BILL AS BOY'S PETS ARE SLAUGHTERED
Cumbria News and Star
A CUMBRIAN family face a legal bill
of up to #40,000 after their teenage son's pet goats were slaughtered because
they were deemed to be a foot-and-mouth risk to 1,500 nearby cattle. Christine
and John Hodgson, of Pear Tree House, Newton Arlosh, near Wigton, withdrew
their challenge in the High Court in London yesterday against the decision by
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to cull the animals
after blood tests revealed six of the nine goats had developed positive
antibodies. Just hours later, at around 2pm, Defra officials moved onto the
premises to slaughter the animals. The goats, with names including Billy, Spot,
Weather, Izzy and Milky, were the much-loved pets of the Hodgsons' 16-year-old
son Joseph, who was born with cerebral palsy and has learning difficulties. A
Vietnamese pot-bellied pig was also killed....The court costs could be as much
as #40,000. "We just don't have that sort of money. It is a
tragedy the Government insists on slaughtering animals with antibodies.
"These are healthy animals which have never shown any signs of the disease
and by virtue of having developed antibodies are now naturally
vaccinated.."
(warmwell comment: if the goats had had this highly
infectious disease before developing antibodies as the "tests" claim,
how was it that the pig, their constant companion, remained unaffected?)Calls
for a vaccination campaign to beat foot and mouth were enthusiastically
welcomed at a public meeting in Penrith last night. More than 300 people packed
into Penrith Rugby Club to hear a succession of speakers call for vaccination
and "direct action'' to change Government policy.posted July 29
ENDS
From the BBC Devon website:
Farmer refuses to pay fine
A North Devon farmer is willing to go to jail rather than pay a fine for
protesting about the Government's foot-and-mouth cull.
Hector Christie has been told to expect bailiffs at his family's estate at
Tapeley Park, Instow, to enforce a magistrates court fine.
Mr Christie was ordered to pay the money after he admitted obstruction in
Bideford while campaigning against the cull. He says he will pay but only if
the Government changes its policy. Otherwise he will continue to make a stand
and risk prison.
County
inquiry into crisis
Devon County Council has announced it will be holding its own inquiry into the
foot-and-mouth crisis.
It says the findings will be presented to the
national public inquiry into the disease, if one is held. The all-party
decision to set up a series of hearings in Devon into the crisis was taken by
the Council's Executive Committee.
A special select committee will be set up to
lead the investigation and the council says it is planning to link up with
district councils in the worst affected areas as well as other interest groups.
If no national inquiry into the disease is held, the
findings will be used to back the council's case for Devon's recovery plan in
negotiations with the Government. The full county council has yet to approve
the idea, but it is hoped that hearings could begin in the autumn.
ENDS
Finally
tonight, our thanks to Bonnie for sorting out some incorrect fax numbers
from the other side of the world:
Hi Alan and Rosie,
The fax numbers supplied in
Sunday's e-mail did not seem to work.
This morning, British Consulate in
San Francisco offered the following
numbers. We were able to get thru
on both fax lines.
Here, FYI:
The Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett,
M.P.,
Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs,
Nobel House,
17 Smith Square.
London, SW1P 3JR
United Kingdom
Tel 011-44-207-238-6000
Fax 011-207-270-8419
Www.maff.gov.uk
The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, MP.,
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London, U.K
SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
Tel. 011-44-207-270-3000
FAX 011-44-207-925-0918
www. number-10.gov.uk
British Consulate San Francisco
415-617-1300
www.britainusa.com
ENDS
from Alan & Rosie