Promed on FMD
Oz
[NB NOte comment from cumbrian vet]
FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE - UK: FORMAL INQUIRIES (03)
***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>
[1]
Date: 18 Jul 2002
From: ProMED-mail <pro...@promedmail.org>
Source: The Times, 17 Jul 2002 [edited]
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,172,00.html>
Consumers "must be persuaded that vaccinated beef is safe"
----------------------------------------------------------
A campaign to promote the safety of meat and milk from animals vaccinated
against foot-and-mouth disease was recommended yesterday as a vital weapon
to combat any future outbreak. The country's leading scientific
establishment, the Royal Society, insists that consumers must be won over
if the Government is to adopt a vaccination strategy. As The Times revealed
last month, the scientific inquiry backs the use of "ring" vaccination as
"major tool of first resort" to prevent any future outbreak becoming an
epidemic.
Unlike the Dutch experience last year, when vaccinated animals were
subsequently slaughtered and banned from human consumption, the inquiry
team advocates "vaccinate to live" with animals going normally into the
food chain. It is demanding a change of rules throughout the European Union
by the end of next year.
Sir Brian Follett, chairman of the inquiry, said that the Food Standards
Agency had already advised that there were no risks to human health about
eating products from vaccinated animals. He added: "I don't know if society
can face the alternative." (He was clearly referring to the mass slaughter
last year of more than 10 million farm animals.) Ian McConnell, director of
research at the Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine at Cambridge
University, said that we already consume products from animals vaccinated
against 33 other diseases.
Consumer resistance was one of the main reasons for the Government
rejecting a vaccination programme last year. Supermarkets were willing to
stock vaccinated food but feared labelled products could be left unsold.
Sir Brian said such a controversial debate should not take place at the
height of an epidemic. Contingency plans for a future outbreak of livestock
diseases should be debated in public and agreed by all interested groups
including consumers. An emergency drill should be rehearsed each year.
The inquiry also criticised the slaughter of animals within a mile of an
infected farm. This so-called "contiguous cull" was recommended by
scientists who had drawn up worst-case scenarios and forecasts for the
disease. David Black, a vet in private practice in Cumbria and a member of
the inquiry, said: "We still don't know how 80 percent of farms became
infected. The contiguous cull was an attempt to identify infected animals
but it was a blunt instrument."
The 400 000-pounds inquiry report concludes, however: "For the foreseeable
future there is no alternative, when an outbreak occurs, to the rapid
culling of diseased animals, and all those that are ... likely to have been
infected by them." Sir Brian explained that the inquiry had favoured
emergency vaccination because mass culling was ineffective. "Five times in
80 years we have not been able to contain this disease with these methods.
So we think, in most cases, we should use vaccination."
The inquiry also accepted that the United Kingdom should seek to remain
free of the disease without routine vaccination. Within 10 to 15 years,
however, a policy of routine vaccination may be possible. Diagnostic tests
will first have to be developed to distinguish whether an animal is
vaccinated or infected. Ben Gill, president of the National Farmers' Union,
supported emergency vaccination as an option. "The threat of importing
disease is increasing. It is vital that the resources needed to protect our
animal populations and native crops and plants keep pace with that."
A new early-warning system to alert the country to the potential threat of
new animal and human diseases is proposed by the Royal Society inquiry.
Bluetongue is a disease of sheep and goats, never yet found in Britain but
present in North America, China, Spain, France, Italy and the Balkans "and
so might move into Britain." It is fatal in 70 percent of cases. African
horse sickness can also affect dogs. Like bluetongue, this disease spreads
by midge bites. Avian influenza or fowl plague, always fatal to poultry,
was last seen in Britain 10 years ago. In 1997 a lethal strain was
transmitted directly from chickens to humans in Hong Kong. All chickens
there were slaughtered, a move the report describes as "drastic but wise."
Emergency vaccination is used to control an outbreak.
[Byline: Valerie Elliott]
********
[2]
Date:18 Jul 2002
From: ProMED-mail <pro...@promedmail.org>
Source: Daily Telegraph, 17 Jul 2002 [edited]
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/17/nfnm17.xml&sSheet=/n
ews/2002/07/17/ixhome.html>
Foot and mouth computer data was inadequate
-------------------------------------------
Computer models used to formulate policy in last year's foot and mouth
epidemic relied on inadequate data, making the contiguous cull a "blunt
instrument", the official scientific inquiry into the crisis said yesterday.
The Royal Society's report into infectious diseases in livestock
commissioned by the Government criticised the reliance on live mathematical
modelling, until then unproven in animal epidemics. It also called for
emergency vaccination to be used instead of contiguous slaughter and said
it was now up to the Government to convince the public and supermarkets
that eating vaccinated meat was not a health risk.
Prof Sir Brian Follett, inquiry chairman, said Britain should be ready by
the end of 2003 to use vaccination as a "major tool of first resort"
provided the Government clarified some of the issues surrounding
vaccination. He called for research to be stepped up so that reliable
prophylactic vaccination could be developed with the aim of stamping out
foot and mouth worldwide forever.
Sir Brian also said there was "no sense" to the countryside closures last
year, estimated to have cost the rural economy between 5 billion and 20
billion pounds. The report recommended that future contingency plans should
be decided and debated by Parliament to prevent party political or other
interests interfering with the plan's execution during an outbreak.But for
many opponents of the contiguous cull, the report will be vindication that
the policy was based on false assumptions.
While there was "considerable benefit to be gained from understanding" how
epidemics spread using computer modelling, the report said "more work is
required to refine the existing models and to strengthen their capacity to
inform policy".
In March 2001, as the Government insisted it was not facing a crisis in the
run-up to the election, Prof David King, the Government chief scientist,
took over control of handling the outbreak.
He called in a team of epidemiologists from Imperial College, London, led
by Prof Roy Anderson. Their analysis confirmed that the epidemic was out of
control. Prof King's solution, supported by modelling of 2 other teams, was
the contiguous cull policy. But yesterday it was condemned by David Black,
a veterinary member of the inquiry committee, as a "blunt instrument.
"We still do not understand how 80 per cent of farms became infected in the
last outbreak. We need a lot more work to understand how disease spreads."
The report called for a central database to be set up on farms, location of
animals, animal movements and the characteristics of diseases.
Prof Anderson conceded that the contiguous cull policy adopted as a result
of his team's work was crude. "It was a blunt tool but, in the crisis and
given the degree to which the disease was spreading, it was unfortunately
the only tool available," he said.
Lord Moran, who 4 months ago pressed a crucial vote that defeated the
animal health Bill, said the report would force the Government to
re-examine its Bill. "Part One of the Bill was based entirely on the
legitimising and carrying out of mass slaughter," he said. "A re-think is
clearly necessary."
[Byline: Robert Uhlig]
--
<ProMED-mail
pro...@promedmail.org>
[The specific comment of the Inquiry on routine vaccination of List A
diseases (which include FMD) as appearing in its summary, says:
"Routine vaccination against some of the OIE List A diseases is possible.
While there are no overwhelming scientific or economic reasons against this
approach being adopted we believe that, at present, the considerable
technical problems and the trade implications argue against changing
current arrangements.
Nevertheless it is clear that the long-term solution is to develop a
vaccine against FMD (and other diseases such as classical swine fever) that
confers lifelong sterile immunity against all strains of the virus. An
international research effort is required to develop such a vaccine".
This new approach towards vaccination is far-reaching and in conflict with
the traditional UK policy, devoutly followed since the adoption of the
recommendations in the Northumberland Report. The said "Report of the
Committee of Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease", Parts 1 and 2, published 7
Mar 1969 and 3 Nov 1969, investigated the 1967-8 epidemic and recommended
continuation of the non-vaccination, stamping-out policy. More than 2
decades later, in 1991, the same policy was adopted by the EU:
discontinuing the annual, preventive vaccination policy performed by most
central and southern European countries for decades, generally with very
good results (when meticulously performed). This policy change was
reflected in the International Animal-Health Code of the OIE. The changed
policy had distinct trade impact, excluding countries that decided to
continue vaccinations from exporting live ruminants and their unprocessed
products to the EU. This led some of them, such as beef-producing countries
in South America, to try and adopt also a non-vaccination policy. It will
be interesting now to follow possible changes in the EU legislation and the
OIE Code. - Mod.AS].
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Gordon Couger
mistrustful of the government that won't believe that a vaccinated animal is
save to eat. What about the several vaccines you give now some of which the
diseases can be caught by humans. Anthrax, rabies, burclosis, and possibly
leptospirosis, and tuberculosis to name the one that come to mind. I forgot
the several encephalitis bugs and parasites as well.
From an out sliders view unless more timely execution of killing and burning
or suspected animals is done and a very early diagnosis of the point of
infection is assured the ring vaccination is the least costly method to
handle the outbreak. The non farm costs appear to out weigh the farm costs
both in dollars and votes.
Had the cull been properly done with the best modern practice for carcass
disposal using napalm to burn the dead the cattle killed in the correct time
frame particularly early in the outbreak the outcome might have been better
in both a quicker end to the outbreak and less smoky pall over the country
side. But you did the best you could with what you had at the time.
The question of vaccination vs. total kill is an economic decision not a
health decision. Why the decision was made to destroy the vaccinated cattle
was mad unless it was to make sure none got in to export channels is obvious
to on the European mind. Maybe they didn't want it to depress the market
price of beef even further.
I would have no problem eating a cow, hog or sheep diagnosed with FMD if I
was going to be isolated from any contact with susceptible animals long
enough for the virus to become non infective. Of course eating infected
animals would sped the infection but eating vaccinated animals is just
another piece of meat.
Gordon
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ouCY2dAt...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
Oz
>FMD has zero impact on human health. Are the people in the UK and EU so
>mistrustful of the government that won't believe that a vaccinated animal is
>save to eat.
The press certainly is.
>What about the several vaccines you give now some of which the
>diseases can be caught by humans. Anthrax, rabies, burclosis, and possibly
>leptospirosis, and tuberculosis to name the one that come to mind. I forgot
>the several encephalitis bugs and parasites as well.
If organic farming bans vaccination (they don;t actually, but say they
do) then it must be dangerous. Heck, even human vaccines are considered
dangerous by many brits (until there is a local epidemic of course).
>The question of vaccination vs. total kill is an economic decision not a
>health decision. Why the decision was made to destroy the vaccinated cattle
>was mad unless it was to make sure none got in to export channels is obvious
>to on the European mind. Maybe they didn't want it to depress the market
>price of beef even further.
No. The problem is that:
1) Breakdowns have been attributed to vaccines in europe.
2) An infected but recently vaccinated animal can have no symptoms but
be infective. Newer vaccines claim to allow this to be detected, but
they are not yet approved for use.
<reams of quoted text deleted by irritated Oz>
Jim Webster
news:iwOZ8.14$ws4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> FMD has zero impact on human health. Are the people in the UK and EU
so
> mistrustful of the government that won't believe that a vaccinated
animal is
> save to eat.
unfortunately the answer is Yes.
If the UK government announced that work by government scientists proved
that unprotected sex added twenty years to your life expectancy, the
birth rate would plummet.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Michelle Fulton
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:ah8onp$ha0$9...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> If the UK government announced that work by government scientists proved
> that unprotected sex added twenty years to your life expectancy, the
> birth rate would plummet.
LOL! That is serious mistrust. I would have thought people would use that
as an excuse to go against common sense ;-)
M
Old Codger
news:YdVZ8.487$qd5.84...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Jim is absolutely correct. Trust in politicians is zero.
There are many examples of politicians providing promises or
assurances on important matters that subsequently turned out to be
untrue. The earliest that I can remember is nuclear power. This was
sold to the public as an eternal source of cheap, almost free
electricity. The scientists must have known, at least in principle,
about the decommissioning problems and consequential costs but these
were not mentioned. (Not against nuclear power, there are many
advantages)
Possibly the most recent high profile example occurred when BSE hit
the fan. A Conservative minister announced that British beef was safe
and he would feed his family with it. The camera then panned to one
of his children eating a beef sandwich. Shortly afterwards it became
an offence to supply beef on the bone for human consumption.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
Oz
>The scientists must have known, at least in principle,
>about the decommissioning problems and consequential costs but these
>were not mentioned. (Not against nuclear power, there are many
>advantages)
I am personally baffled by the need to decommission. Here you have a
concrete bunker with rather low levels of radioactivity (the core having
been removed) which you then decommission producing VAST tonnages of low
level waste which you have no home for. I cannot see why it can't be
buried in dirt and capped with concrete and left for a few thousand
years,
>Possibly the most recent high profile example occurred when BSE hit
>the fan. A Conservative minister announced that British beef was safe
>and he would feed his family with it. The camera then panned to one
>of his children eating a beef sandwich. Shortly afterwards it became
>an offence to supply beef on the bone for human consumption.
Actually there was a gap of several years between the two. Further all
authorities soon agreed that the risk, although there, was
infinitesimal.
Hamish Macbeth
"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote in message
news:YdVZ8.487$qd5.84...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
Perhaps, but our polititions have less charisma than President Clinton :)
Old Codger
> Old Codger writes
> >The scientists must have known, at least in principle,
> >about the decommissioning problems and consequential costs but
these
> >were not mentioned. (Not against nuclear power, there are many
> >advantages)
>
> I am personally baffled by the need to decommission. Here you have a
> concrete bunker with rather low levels of radioactivity (the core
having
> been removed) which you then decommission producing VAST tonnages of
low
> level waste which you have no home for. I cannot see why it can't be
> buried in dirt and capped with concrete and left for a few thousand
> years,
Very good point. The objection presumably is the rather large area of
land that is unusable for those few thousand years. I suspect that
there will be some area around the power station that will be unusable
for some considerable time any way and, whatever is done with the
waste will make somewhere else unusable so can't really see the
difference, particularly when we cannot know which parts of the planet
will be most valued in even a few hundred years.
> >Possibly the most recent high profile example occurred when BSE hit
> >the fan. A Conservative minister announced that British beef was
safe
> >and he would feed his family with it. The camera then panned to
one
> >of his children eating a beef sandwich. Shortly afterwards it
became
> >an offence to supply beef on the bone for human consumption.
>
> Actually there was a gap of several years between the two.
Was it really that long, my memory says a few months at most.
> Further all
> authorities soon agreed that the risk, although there, was
> infinitesimal.
I thought the gap here was longer than the first gap, must be my age.
Didn't the infinitesimal statement come some time after one or two
individuals had publicly eaten beef on the bone and, I think it was a
rumour, Prince Charles had been offered some?
Michelle Fulton
"Hamish Macbeth" <Hamish....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ah9t8v$kf3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Perhaps, but our polititions have less charisma than President Clinton
:)
LOL! Yes, he was very charismatic, literally and figuratively ;-) I
actually thought he was a good president, and a bad husband.
Am I clip'n good, or what?
M
Oz
>> concrete bunker with rather low levels of radioactivity (the core
>having
>> been removed) which you then decommission producing VAST tonnages of
>low
>> level waste which you have no home for. I cannot see why it can't be
>> buried in dirt and capped with concrete and left for a few thousand
>> years,
>
>Very good point. The objection presumably is the rather large area of
>land that is unusable for those few thousand years.
Actually it's a *tiny* area of land that just comprises the core.
>I suspect that
>there will be some area around the power station that will be unusable
>for some considerable time any way
Hardly. Ever had a trip round a nuclear powerstaion, or even sellafield
come to that?
You get to walk over the core, perfectly safe. Apart from the core, the
site is uncontaminated.
>and, whatever is done with the
>waste will make somewhere else unusable
But it's a MUCH bigger somewhere else because waste
treatment/decontamination produces vast amounts of low level waste that
needs safe storage.
David G. Bell
<nQ77pnAF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk "Oz" wrote:
Charlie Stross's weblog, found on the www.antipope.org website, has an
account of a visit to a nuclear power station. Some of the ancillary
tech is a bit exotic -- the steam turbines are unusual because the
particular design runs at a much higher steam temperature/pressure --
but that's outside the reactor building.
And coal-burning releases radioactive material too.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
Gordon Couger
""David G. Bell"" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20020720.08...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
Gordon
Andrew Byron
> Gordon Couger writes
>
Just got chance to look at the original promed post, very intersting, I see
good old Roy Anderson still trying to justify the contiguous cull.
just a couple of points.
>
> No. The problem is that:
>
> 1) Breakdowns have been attributed to vaccines in europe.
This is correct, there were some breakdowns atributed to vaccines whiah
hadn't been properly attenuated, but vaccination hasn't been used for over
ten years in Europe and vaccines have improved and I've been told that this
would no longer be the case.
> 2) An infected but recently vaccinated animal can have no symptoms but
> be infective. Newer vaccines claim to allow this to be detected, but
> they are not yet approved for use.
This is also correct, the posibility of the 'carrier state ' being created
by vaccination was one of the key objections to vaccnation. But as far as
I'm aware no outbreak has ever been atributed to a carrier animal. Also
extensive research failed to get carrier animals to infect naive ones
despite valliant efforts to do so. The argument that it could theoretically
happen under field conditions doesn't really stack up because surely if
infection can't be induced under 'perfect' laboratory conditions, it isn't
going to happen under imperfect field conditions either.
The key objection to using vaccination to my mind isn't that it won't work,
but that international trade rules discriminate against the countries that
use it, by placing export restrictions on animals with FMD antibodies. We
should remember though that trade rules aren't set in stone. they are man
made and they could be changed, it's just a question of creating the will to
do it.
Did anyone hear Roy Anderson on the Today prog this morning BTW?
Oz
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:UbMHbCGX...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> Gordon Couger writes
>>
>Just got chance to look at the original promed post, very intersting, I see
>good old Roy Anderson still trying to justify the contiguous cull.
>
>just a couple of points.
>>
>> No. The problem is that:
>>
>> 1) Breakdowns have been attributed to vaccines in europe.
>
>This is correct, there were some breakdowns atributed to vaccines whiah
>hadn't been properly attenuated, but vaccination hasn't been used for over
>ten years in Europe and vaccines have improved and I've been told that this
>would no longer be the case.
Maybe, maybe not.
The main problem is that there weren't enough large animal vets to do
the work any more.
>> 2) An infected but recently vaccinated animal can have no symptoms but
>> be infective. Newer vaccines claim to allow this to be detected, but
>> they are not yet approved for use.
>
>This is also correct, the posibility of the 'carrier state ' being created
>by vaccination was one of the key objections to vaccnation. But as far as
>I'm aware no outbreak has ever been atributed to a carrier animal. Also
>extensive research failed to get carrier animals to infect naive ones
>despite valliant efforts to do so. The argument that it could theoretically
>happen under field conditions doesn't really stack up because surely if
>infection can't be induced under 'perfect' laboratory conditions, it isn't
>going to happen under imperfect field conditions either.
One never knows.
>The key objection to using vaccination to my mind isn't that it won't work,
>but that international trade rules discriminate against the countries that
>use it, by placing export restrictions on animals with FMD antibodies. We
>should remember though that trade rules aren't set in stone. they are man
>made and they could be changed, it's just a question of creating the will to
>do it.
They key objection is that it's horribly expensive, and you still have a
lot of naive animals (eg born between vaccinations) to get a breakdown
going.
Jim Webster
> Andrew Byron writes
> They key objection is that it's horribly expensive, and you still have
a
> lot of naive animals (eg born between vaccinations) to get a breakdown
> going.
>
> --
I have just been digging around into vaccination. UK government will
never tell us how much it would cost, but they told the NZ MAF who put
the figure on their website, saying that the UK government told them it
would cost NZ$15 per head vaccinated.
I decided to push forward even more and I may have found JMs 20 cent
vaccine. Looking for prices I found
http://www.move-in.org/wwwboard/messages/98.html
This is from the start of May 2001
DEAR,SAMI SULIMAN,MYSELF DR. UNDEGAONKAR FROM COMPANY TECHNOVET PHARMA
PUNE INDIA IS MARKETER FOR F.M.D. VACCINE HAVING STRAIN O,A,C,ASIA 1
MNF BY GOVT OF INDIA
PRICE IN INDIA YOU WILL GET AT 10 DOSE VIAL AT RATE OF 2U.S.DOLLER
TRANSPORT ,DUTY WILL BE AT YOUR SIDE.
THANKING YOU
There is also JSC Sakagrobiomretsvi of the former Soviet republic of
Georgia have a fine selection of vaccines available.
They are currently fulfilling the following orders from the Georgian
Ministry of Agriculture. One million doses of fmd vaccine at 13p a
dose, half a million doses of vaccine against fmd (Asia-1) at 26p a dose
and for good measure, 400,000 anti rabies vaccine at 14p per dose. All
this is using proven soviet technology.
It may be that the British Government figure allowed for injecting the
vaccine. Hence if the most sensible method was chosen of practice vets
vaccinating cattle in their own practice, these vets are currently paid
£58 per hour. Most reckon they could expect to vaccinate 60 animals an
hour, managing 30 even if the facilities were poor. So ignoring any
bureaucratic overlay the cost of vaccination should be well below £2 per
animal and perhaps as low as £1.20
note this is all old technology, not the gee whiz GM vaccines that were
"going to save the world" so is prone to all the problems of this old
technology.
Note also I haven't suggested we bother about vaccinating sheep either.
Does anyone?
Isn't it amazing just how cheap these vaccines are when you don't have
to buy them in the UK! Wonder if I could get JSC Sakagrobiomretsvi to
quote for rotovirus and BVD.