Top

  THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FOOT AND MOUTH CRISIS

STEVE RANSOM, of Credence Publications, on

THE MANAGEMENT OF A PSEUDO-CRISIS

Over the last few weeks, international television and radio news bulletins
have brought world audiences graphic reports of an encroaching pestilence.
The dreaded and highly infectious livestock disease known as 'foot and mouth
', or FMD, has returned to British shores. The globe is being treated to
round the clock reports on "the extent of the FMD nightmare".

Mounds of destroyed cattle, gruesome pyres burning through the night,
ashen-faced reporters delivering the latest outbreak statistics, people
being warned to stay away from the countryside. "As well as being airborne,
the foot and mouth virus can adhere to car tyres. Do not venture into the
countryside, unless absolutely necessary," warned the BBC Monday 26th Feb.,
10 o'clock evening news. The same feature included reports of international
rugby matches being cancelled, a meat shortage crisis pending, pan shots of
once-thriving but now empty cattle markets, lots of hype, lots of emotion,
lots of TV batten-down specials ... but, as we shall soon discover, no
actual facts.

In truth, if these events have taught us anything, it is just how much we
are at the mercy of today's media. As a result of this barrage of emotive,
inaccurate hype, there are now members of the public who consider it
genuinely irresponsible to hang out a strip of bacon for their garden birds,
or to go for a walk in the country until this crisis is over. Despite the
much-trusted BBC, ITV, C4 pronouncements, the facts surrounding this 'crisis
' are very different to what we have so far been told.

Abigail Wood is a vet and researcher into the history of FMD, based at the
University of Manchester in the UK. She remains very down to earth over
these latest 'rampaging vicious virus' reports. Credence Publications
contacted her as a result of her recent Times article (1) which began: "Foot
and mouth is as serious to animals as a bad cold is to human beings. So why
the concern?"

Wood's research, in conjunction with research carried out by Credence
Publications makes it quite clear that FMD is not the vicious gremlin we
have been led to believe.

SO WHAT IS FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE?

The current wisdom theorises that FMD is viral in nature. Symptoms of FMD in
livestock begin usually with a temperature, followed within 24 hours by the
appearance of blisters and ulcerations on places such as the tongue, lips,
gums, dental pad, inter-digital skin of the feet, bulbs of the heels and
milk teats. Occasionally, ulcerations appear inside the nostrils or on the
muzzle or vulva. Visually, these ulcerations are the equivalent of large
cold sores.

The resultant illness and lameness causes decreased appetite, a drop in milk
yield, a drop in productivity, and of course, increased care costs.
Afflicted animals almost always recover, usually within a week or two. Death
occurs in only 5 percent of cases (2), and the meat is fit to eat (3).

For much of the 19th century, FMD was common right the way across the UK. In
fact, it was endemic. But it did not destroy farming. We lived with it. Our
cattle became ill . and then they recovered. Life continued on as normal. So
why today's scenes of mass destruction? Quite simply, it is because we are
continuing to adhere to some woefully errant farming policy instituted
nearly 50 years ago.

Says Wood: "The instant destruction policy was implemented in the 1950s by
the UK governing bodies, as a result of growing pressure over the years from
pedigree herd owners, (rather than the more common meat and milk producers)
who wished to see the eradication of FMD. Continued promotion of the
slaughter policy by the UK authorities as the most effective way of dealing
with foot and mouth, eventually persuaded the continent and then the rest of
the world to follow suit. We instituted the policy, and now we have to live
with the results of that policy."

In those early years, FMD was as much a part of British farming as bad
weather, poor harvests and other afflictions affecting livelihood. But in
today's intensive farming climate, production and global reputation is
everything. Because of the UK's continued and, as we shall see, unfounded
insistence that FMD is highly infectious, and must be eradicated at all
costs, one whiff on the global food markets that UK herds have FMD leads
quite naturally to today's totally disproportionate scenes.

A PIT OF OUR OWN MAKING

If we are in a pit, then it is a pit of our own making. And if this latest
'outbreak' is to be referred to as a nightmare, then it is a nightmare
brought about by our own political and economic policies.

The cows, pigs and sheep dying today are not doing so as a result of any
illness. They are dying entirely at the hands of man. The preliminary report
on this latest FMD 'outbreak' submitted by Dr J.M. Scudamore, UK Chief
Veterinary Officer, to the OIE (Office International des Epizooties) tells
of 35 cases on three farms, no deaths occurring anywhere from the actual
disease, but 577 animals on those farms nevertheless instantly destroyed
(4). Should we line up our children because they are coughing?

LET'S ASK SOME FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS

With the facts to hand regarding FMD, we should begin to ask some
fundamental questions? Why can't our vital farming community, and the public
at large be given the necessary facts, and then more importantly, the
opportunity to question this instant destruction policy?

But therein lies the difficulty folks. "It would be very difficult to change
it now," Wood told us. "That would be to question the perceived wisdom of
the last 100 years."

It is entrenched scientific error, and intractable pride on behalf of the UK
agricultural and governmental bodies, that is the killer in our midst.

A spokesperson from the diagnostic department of Animal Health Trust who
wished not to be named, stated "The hype is all out of proportion. If the
authorities just left the animals alone to recover from FMD, this would make
them healthy, and immune the next time around."

Moving on from 'foot and mouth as common cold', what's all this about FMD
being viral in nature, being airborne, and sticking to car tyres and
Wellington boots?

Apparently, the FMD virus is quite choosy, being breathed out by pigs, but
not breathed in by cats or dogs. It can be hosted by horses, but to no
ill-effect, and humans too can contract the virus, suffering mild skin
irritations. But is this pattern of disease grounded in reality? Does it
conform to a sensible pattern of disease? Or are we once again just trusting
the wisdom of the day?

In attempting to discover how these agencies arrive at a positive diagnosis
of FMD, and to try and get an explanation for the seemingly illogical nature
of FMD proliferation, some conventional 'dodging' techniques began to
surface. And especially when questioned over the possibility of
mis-diagnosis

HUGE POTENTIAL FOR MIS-DIAGNOSIS

The blood test used to determine the presence of the FMD virus is known as
the ELISA test or enzyme linked immuno-absorbent assay test. The test
delivers the positive reading by detecting proteins and antibodies in the
blood - proteins and antibodies which are presumed to be there as a result
of the presence of the virus. At no time is a virus itself ever detected. No
photograph exists anywhere of the FMD virus. Like so many other viruses in
the $multi-billion virus industry, we have only innumerable artists'
impressions to go by. As far as actual proof is concerned, there isn't any.
We accept the virus model for FMD (and BSE for that matter) because that's
what we're told. But there are good grounds indeed for questioning the
validity of this whole approach to disease detection. For ELISA comes to us
with a very chequered history.

In the realm of human medicine, ELISA is used extensively to detect certain
diseases, particularly HIV. And this same test is now acknowledged to be
responsible for delivering a very high number of 'false' positive HIV
diagnoses. Conventional medical literature lists some 60 different
conditions, unrelated to HIV that can elicit an HIV positive response,
including flu! (5)

It is conflict of interests, huge pharmaceutical losses, entrenched error
and the threat of massive litigation that has stopped this disastrous story
from becoming more widely known. The animal kingdom is equally susceptible
to foreign proteins in the blood and heightened levels of antibody activity.
The stress of confinement alone can produce an immune response in an animal.
Kelly Sapsford, Operations Manager at Harlan Sera Labs, a serum and antibody
manufacturing company told us "Antibodies are not necessarily specific to
one disease. Picture a key that fits a certain lock. The key to that lock is
not necessarily unique. There may well be other locks out there that the key
will fit."

What minor illnesses are there in the animal kingdom that might elicit the
same immune response to FMD? And with all these farms being visited at such
lightning speed, what are the protocols being adhered to? Are they being
adhered to? Surely, we are allowed to know these things.

The officials at Pirbright Animal Health Laboratory responsible for managing
this latest 'crisis', however appear to think otherwise. No awkward
questions are entertained. Under specific instruction from management, a Dr
Tom Barrett at Pirbright told us that staff were not allowed to answer any
questions, except through the Medical Director.

Numerous telephone calls to MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries) produced the same negative response, pointing us only to their
website. Repeated attempts to speak to somebody in authority at Pirbright
finally located the Head of Diagnostics, John Anderson. He informed us that
whilst the ELISA tests were manufactured 'in-house' "... of course, they
were accurate." This same pat answer is what was being delivered by the
relevant authorities as the accounts of HIV misdiagnosis began to surface.

Anderson then listed the other tests which are used in conjunction with
ELISA to supposedly confirm the presence of the virus. Unfortunately, the
confirmatory tests he mentioned are all equally susceptible to error. And
the fact that the Pirbright FMD tests are manufactured in-house excludes
them from that valuable check and balance system known as peer review.
Extracting qualifying information from governmental bodies is never
straightforward. Colin King, a spokesman from an independent veterinary
diagnostics company, stated; "The protocol information and detail you seek
will be almost impossible to come by. In peace time as well as in war, these
government agencies won't really tell you anything."

RECOVERED COWS BEING SLAUGHTERED

To summarise the current FMD 'crisis', this extract from Abigail Wood's
account of the 1920's Cheshire FMD outbreak is most revealing. Trawled from
Cheshire local newspapers available at the Cheshire Records Office we read
"Ministry teams were so far behind in their slaughtering that on many farms
the cows had recovered before the slaughterers had arrived. Farmers looked
at their now-normal cows in bewilderment and asked "Was that it? Was that
trivial illness what all the fuss was about?" (6)

Until MAFF and other responsible agencies begin to answer these questions,
and until we, the general public cease to worship so unremittingly at the
altar of conventional medical science, this crisis (as with numerous other
iatrogenic, or doctor induced crises) will remain out of control and on the
rampage.

For it is in researching this situation more carefully, that we realise the
only identifiable entities out of control and on the rampage are our own
ignorance of the facts and those official bodies conducting the current
slaughter.

The fact that the latest news bulletins are reporting that 'expert'
intervention may now have contained the crisis, must not lull us into a
false sense of security over their expertise.

There was nothing to worry about in the first place. The whole thing has
been an absolute disgrace.

REFERENCES:

1. The Times, (London), 1st March 2001.

2. Australian Animal Health Information Services. www.aahc.com.au 5th March
2001 update.

3. The Times, ibid.

4. Office International des Epizooties
www.oie.int/eng/info/hebdo/AIS_60.htm#Sec2

5. A more detailed account of the problems with ELISA testing can be found
at www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjtestfp.htm and also at

http://tomdavisbooks.com/headlines/hivdumbtest.html

6. Ms Woods is soon to release her own report on FMD where the detailed
references will be published in full.

Contact Steve Ransom at steve1@onetel.net.uk 
www.credence.org


Top

ALISTAIR McCONNACHIE on

THE STATE'S "SLASH AND BURN" POLICY

In May 1996 I wrote an article "Mad Cows and Englishmen" which was
distributed widely at the time, and examined the sudden "Mad Cow" scare
which had hit the country, to hugely damaging effect.

It demonstrated that there was, and still is, no convincing evidence
whatsoever that BSE ("Mad Cow Disease") was linked to cattle feedstuffs
which had been partly derived from animal proteins, or that nvCJD in humans,
was in any way, linked to BSE.

It explained that BSE originated from the organo-phosphate chemicals which
had been used to treat warble fly in cattle - the same organo-phosphates
which are used in military nerve gas. NvCJD in humans was unrelated to
consumption of beef, and in many cases was directly related to human contact
with organo-phosphates.

The behaviour of the Government was an over-reaction based on a faulty
diagnosis. Millions of perfectly healthy animals were slaughtered and many
people lost their livelihoods. The present Foot and Mouth crisis has all the
hallmarks of another government over-reaction, which threatens the
livelihoods of thousands of people.

However, we can't blame farmers for taking whatever precautions they deem
necessary. Many farmers have worked all their lives to build herds - often
pedigree - of which they can be proud. The knowledge that an outbreak of FMD
on their farm would allow the State to move in and kill everything they own
and care for, is a horrifying thought. Many would be distraught.

So long as mass slaughter is government policy, then we need to be
sympathetic and understanding towards their plight.


MOVE TOWARDS A NATIONALLY-BASED POLICY

In the short term, the government should admit there is no reason to panic.
It should continue to work to contain the outbreak locally and it should
scale down the essentially unnecessary slaughter policy, which threatens the
livelihoods of thousands, and gives the false impression that the disease is
something worse than it really is.

In the long-term, it will be necessary to move towards a locally and
nationally based agricultural industry rather than an industry which is
dependent on export markets, and entirely at the mercy of the ups and downs
of the global marketplace.

In this regard, an excellent new book Localization - A Global Manifesto by
Colin Hines (London: Earthscan, 2000) posits the common sensical policy of
"maximum self-reliance rather than today's fetishism of international
competitiveness" (Colin Hines, "The New Protectionism", The Ecologist, March
2001, pp. 44-45).

It argues that everything that can be produced within a nation or region,
should be. Long distance trade is then used properly for exchanging that
which cannot be produced nationally or regionally. "Beggar your neighbour"
trade is replaced by "better your neighbour" trade. "Protect the local,
globally" is the rallying cry.

Such a policy will rebuild the rural economy, free it from dependence on the
export trade and provide the long-term markets at home which will enable the
industry to weather its occasional crisis.

The same arguments are also used by Michael Rowbotham in the ground-breaking
work, The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and
destructive economics (Oxford: Jon Carpenter Pub., 1998).

Top

Farming in crisis

The crisis in British agriculture, highlighted by the food and mouth
epidemic, is not a natural phenomenon.  Nor is it entirely due to our
participation in the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Other member
states, which also take part in the CAP, have not suffered as badly.

Research by UK Independence Party research director Dr Richard North has
shown that the scale and extent of the crisis is due to lack of support of
the agricultural sector, over-generous funding to competitive industries and
a deliberate policy of successive governments of under-claiming EU funds.  

The under-claiming is a result of the 1984 Fontainbleau agreement on the
rebate for Britain's EU contributions, where CAP funds above a minimum level
are clawed back from the UK's budgetary rebate.

To restore the competitiveness of the British agricultural sector would need
an additional annual payment of £3.5 billion - more than the subsidies
already paid - even without the current Foot and Mouth Disease crisis.

However, not only has the government no intention of increasing farm
payments, due to restrictive rules on state aid and the fall-out from swine
fever and BSE on the continent, there is no prospect of any additional money
even to compensate farmers for FMD losses.   

Mr Blair claims farming in Britain has a long term future but the reality is
that - without additional money - the future may belong only to foreign
farming, while while those British farmers who are not on the dole will be
park-keepers paid by the government to keep the weeds down on their otherwise
empty farms.

"By not coming clean - and admitting that there is no money in the kitty -
the Blair government is cynically exploiting this crisis", says North.

Dr Richard North's full report is available on the UK Independence Party's
web site at www.ukip.org


Top

Slaughter of the innocuous
 the Times - 2 - Viewpoint - page 5.  What IS going on?

THURSDAY MARCH 01 2001
 
BY ABIGAIL WOOD
 
Foot-and-mouth is as serious to animals as a bad cold is to human
beings. So why the concern?
 
Foot-and-mouth has gained a grip on this nation - and fear of the
disease seems as powerful as the disease itself. We recognise foot-and-
mouth not by its symptoms, but by what we do to control it: the
restrictions on movement, the slaughter of animals, the burning of
carcasses.
From the panic and the headlines you would imagine that this is a most
dreadful disease. Yet foot-and-mouth very rarely kills the animals that
catch it. They almost always recover, and in a couple of weeks at that.
It almost never gets passed on to humans and when it does it is a mild
infection only. The meat from animals that have had it is fit to eat. In
clinical terms, foot-and-mouth is about as serious, to animals or to
people, as a bad cold.

Why, then, the concern? And why the policy of wholesale slaughter? The
concern, of course, is economic. This is a financial issue, not an
animal welfare issue, nor a human health one. No one abroad will take
our meat if it might be infected with foot-and-mouth. And that worldwide
exclusion zone stems from British policies of the past. It was we who,
in the late 19th century, decided that foot-and-mouth should not be
lived with, but should be eliminated, shut out through the cordon
sanitaire; it was we, in the 1950s, who encouraged first the Continent,
then the rest of the world, into following suit. Now it is we who must
live with the results of that policy.

Foot-and-mouth disease does reduce the productivity of an animal: its
milk yield, its rate of putting on of flesh. There are no figures for
how much it reduces these things; part of the reason for that is that no
one since the 1920s in Britain has seen the disease take its full
course. Any animal infected with it has been immediately slaughtered
That reduction in productivity, that fear of small economic loss, is
what lies behind the elimination policy - and the huge economic costs
that are now being incurred.

It need not have been like that. The animal control policy was the
result of economics rather than biology. Under conditions of world trade
now it is a decision almost impossible to reverse.

Foot-and-mouth first appeared in Britain in 1839 from the import of live
infected animals and later from ships, from dockyards, from Argentinian
meat and skins, even from foreign hay. For much of the 19th century it
was endemic in the UK - and it did not destroy farming. Farmers lived
with it, as they live with bad weather, poor harvests and other
afflictions of their livelihood.

It was owners of pedigree herds, rather than common-or-garden milk or
meat producers, who from 1869 prompted efforts to eradicate it. It was
achieved by isolation, by movement restrictions, by temporary closures
of markets and by prohibition of live imports - but not by slaughtering.
By 1900, Britain was disease-free - but was subject to waves of re-
introductions of foot-and-mouth from the Continent and from South
American meat. Outbreaks, and now slaughters as well as isolations, were
frequent; but familiarity made them more of an irritant than the terror
we have today.

A policy of living with foot-and-mouth almost became an option again in
the 1920s. A bad outbreak in Cheshire was on the verge of running out of
control.Ministry teams were so far behind in their slaughtering that on
many farms the cows had recovered from the disease before the
slaughterers arrived. And farmers looked at their now-normal cows in
bewilderment and asked: "Was that it? Was that rather trivial illness
what all the fuss was about?" Not surprisingly, they began to question
the need for slaughter.

Even the Ministry of Agriculture, now wedded to the policy of slaughter,
was pressured into taking heed of farmers' views, and even asked them
which policy they would prefer, elimination or toleration. It even went
to a vote. But by that time burnings had got on top of the disease, and
the vote, though close, was to continue measures of eradication.

This was the last time that people saw the full course of the illness.
Memories of what a slight disease it was began to fade. The biggest
outbreak in our history, in 1967-68, is the one that lingers in present
memories, and memory of those days fuels the grim processes we now see.

A policy of living with foot-and-mouth might have worked in the 1920s,
and had we adopted it we would not be witness to the present scenes. But
in those days productivity was not the be-all and end-all that it is
now. So many diseases were around that a farmer was happy if his animals
survived to give milk and meat at all. The rate at which they gave milk
and meat was much less important.

Today, agri-business is a term that everyone knows, and productivity is
everything. A slower growth-rate, a lesser yield, is intolerable. And
with markets being global or nothing at all, a Britain with foot-and-
mouth would find its meat unexportable and its farmers bankrupted.

It is now too late to consider the option of tolerating the disease. So
the cows are slaughtered. Our past policy has forced us to this pass.
That policy evolved in a very different farming world from today;
historical precedent has informed our current position, but, ironically,
today's realities make that position far more justified than ever it was
when it began.

The author is a vet and researcher into the history of foot-and-mouth
for the Wellcome Trust at the University of Manchester.

Top

Foot and Mouth

There is little or no doubt that EU policy has exacerbated this outbreak.

The closure of virtually every local abattoire in Britain has led to
livestock being hauled LIVE and thus potentially contagous huge distances
for slaughter.
eg.    Pigs from Scotland & Northumberland TO *Portugal* for re-import to
Britain in freezer vans for sale in British super markets - labeled 'Produce
of Portugal'
Chickens sent live to France slaughtered together with Thai chickens and
re-imported to Britain labeled 'Produce of France'.

I understand that EU products produced to the same standards [that will be
the day] as British goods can also bear the 'Red Tractor' British produce
standard.

The dictatorship in the EU seems quite clearly to be saying 'YOU will eat
what WE give you and we will label it to suit US not you.' Further they seem
to be saying 'Britain WILL obey ALL the rules but the rest of the EU can
comply with those that suit them.'

Tiny Blur has the perfect 'out' because the British Parliament couldn't pass
wind without permission of the EU, let alone Law pertaining to farming.

This may seem an over statement but stop and think - ALL law can be tested
in the Courts and the final appeal is the EU Court ipso facto ALL law MUST
comply to the EU's diktat.

Parliament at Westminster is thus a very expensive RUBBER STAMP - your MP is
a total irrelevance, just voting fodder for the lobbies so that the EU can
*pretend* you live in a democratic country.

ALL Law is thus made by an un-elected dictator committee in Brussels which
has proved beyond doubt to be corrupt, fraudulent, incompetent and anti
British.

Whilst British Politicians have their Foot in Their Mouth and the BBC
peddles propaganda supporting the dictatorship Britain is being destroyed.

Regards,
Greg

Top

Compensation - to leave the Business

James Black, of the National Pig Association, said he was concerned that pig farmers were missing out on compensation being offered to beef, dairy  and sheep farmers.

"We need to be treated as fairly as other sectors," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The Government was bringing in the agro-monetary compensation to help the other sectors, Mr Black said, but he added: "As far as the pig industry is concerned we are concerned that some of the money that has been announced may be just a reallocation of something we have previously had allocated to us."

Agriculture Minister Nick Brown said Mr Black had a "good point" and was absolutely correct. Under EU rules pig farmers could not receive the agro-monetary compensation and the Government was very limited in the help it could give, he said.

"What I am trying to do is find some other means that would be legal - that would conform to the state aid rules - and be of practical assistance to pig farmers," Mr Brown said.

To do that money that would have been spent in two years time helping pig farmers to leave the industry under a restructuring scheme would be spent now on aiding those who felt they had had enough, he said. "This is the best I can do in short order to try and find something that will help pig farmers as well because James Black is on to a perfectly fair point," he said.

The Agriculture Minister again resisted calls to compensate abattoirs, haulage companies and other businesses hit by the ban on moving livestock.

"The Government is spending a great deal of money, not only on controlling the disease but also on compensating those directly effected," he said. "Frankly I am not able to say today how much money the Government is going to end up spending because of these two substantial costs."

Top

Farming - Question

Exactly how this situation has come about - and who is responsible for it - is difficult to identify."

Response: 

Top

Letter to Blair 

Top

FMD Chaos - The truth behind the mess

Christopher Gill, MP for Ludlow, and with a farming business which
includes a slaughterhouse and meat packing, has just told me that the
reason the government in general and Nick Brown in particular is making
such a mess of managing the foot-and-mouth crisis is simply this:

Every time the minister wants to do anything, or wants to know what he
should do, he has to get on the phone to Brussels and ask them.

Since the continentals want nothing better than to open up the UK to
their meat exports, they are pushing him down the road towards mass
slaughter and restrictions on movements of animals even for humane
reasons like lambing.

Whatever decisions help the EU to exploit this crisis for their own
meat exports later, they are the decisions that are being taken.

And all this comes on top of the EU policies which have shut hundreds of
small slaughterhouses in recent years and made the spread of the disease
infinitely worse than it might have been, and also ban the sensible
policy used in the 60s of deep and immediate burial of carcases.  (The
virus can only survive for a couple of weeks or so outside a host
animal.)

Instead, rotting carcases, and the wind picking up the virus before and
at the start of the burning process, have all been adding to our
problems from the start.

Christopher Gill is the only Tory MP ever to say publicly that the UK
should withdraw from the EU.  He has been bitterly complaining to the
minister about this state of affairs for days, now, and has got
precisely nowhere with him.

Ashley Mote

Top

Christopher Booker's notebook.
"black sheep economy"

Sunday Telegraph  March 16th. 2001


Last week as it became clear that the Government has completely lost the
plot over the foot-and-mouth (FMD) catastrophe, the hidden story emerged as
to just why the disease spread with such unprecedented speed all over the
country,  and why the Government is risking mass-revolt by farmers against
its plan to kill up to 1 million healthy animals.

The key to why the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food thinks it
has no alternative but to lash out blindly with this vast and seemingly
irrational cull lies in a "black sheep economy" created by the peculiar
rules of the European Union's sheep subsidy system. To conform with a
deadline under these rules, hundreds of small consignments of  sheep were a
month ago being secretly dropped by dealers around the country to enable a
minority of farmers to make up the numbers for which they had claimed EU
quota. Because these movements were not recorded, when it turned out that
many of these sheep bought in Cumbria were infected MAFF could not track
them down. This is why in panic last week MAFF was contemplating a
mass-cull of up to 500,000 sheep, because officials thought this was the
only way of killing all the "black sheep" which had disappeared off the
radar. The story of this epidemic has unfolded through four stages. Step
one was the original infection of elderly sows in Northumbria, almost
certainly through imported meat. Under EU rules, meat can be legally
imported from many countries with FMD. One possibility is that the meat
came from the nearby Albermarle army barracks, forced to use cheap foreign
meat under EU public procurement rules. Step two, the first spread of the
infection, was the movement of pigs from Northumbria to Cheale's abattoir
in Essex, because all nearer abattoirs specialising in cull sows have been
shut down by the mass-closure of abattoirs under MAFF's over-zealous
interpretation of EU hygiene rules. Step three came when the infection was
passed to sheep being sold at Longtown market near Carlisle in Cumbria,
where large numbers were bought by a small group of big dealers who then
distributed them all over the country. Much of this trade in last year's
lambs or "hoggetts" is legitimate, because this is the time of year when
many are sold on for fattening before Easter, when new lambs normally come
on the market. But step four, the real spanner in the works, came with the
additional trade in "black sheep", the unofficial or "out of ring" buying
of ewes needed to top up holdings already claimed for under the EU's "ewe
premium" quota scheme. Because this year quota has been ludicrously cheap,
partly because MAFF over-estimated last year's British sheep census by 1
million, a small minority of dealers and farmers have been buying up quota
by the sackload, without having the sheep to justify it. There are of
course draconian penalties for claiming subsidies on sheep which don't
exist, and the deadline for this was February 4, the start of the so-called
"retention period",  after which MAFF inspectors may arrive to check
whether numbers match the quota claimed and paid for. This was why after
that date there was a rush to make deliveries of ewes all over the country,
to match up to the claimed quota, and by definition these movements were
not recorded. It is this which has given MAFF the impossible task of trying
to track down where all the deliveries were made, precisely because many of
the ewes have gone to farmers who will not admit they had to buy in
illicitly to meet the quota rules. This is why, in consultation with
Brussels,  they are now resorting to the unprecedented step of trying to
kill hundreds of thousands of uninfected animals in the desperate hope of
sweeping up all those "black sheep" which might be infected into the net.
If this was not such a catastrophe for the whole of British agriculture,
one might be tempted to re-write the old nursery rhyme, "Baa baa, black
sheep, we wonder where you are. You're bought to meet the quota rules, ha,
ha, ha". But it is more than just a disaster, it is an immense national
tragedy, which, by finally wiping out many of our remaining small livestock
farmers, may end up by changing the face of our countryside forever.
******************* The only one of 659 MPs who last week had the sense to
pull out from the House of Commons library the official report on the great
1967/8 foot-and-mouth outbreak was Owen Paterson, the member for North
Shropshire, the county which 33 years ago was the epidemic's epicentre. As
was confirmed in Friday's Daily Telegraph leader, based on his researches,
what a contrast that report provides to the shambles we are witnessing
today. The central recommendation of the 1969 report was that, to minimise
the spread of infection, animals should be shot as soon as signs of the
disease appear; then disposed of on the spot without delay, preferably by
burial in quicklime. Burning was particularly advised against as it
increases the risk of spreading the virus. The contrast to the current
chaos could not be more complete, where animals are often not killed for
several days until tests are completed,  and may then lie around for
several more days until they can be trucked through uninfected areas to
rendering plants in Cheshire or Devon. As Mr Paterson asks, "why are the
lessons of that 30-year old report being so recklessly ignored?" The reason
is that disposal of animal carcasses is now governed by a series of complex
waste disposal and groundwater rules originating from EU directives, which
make it much harder to bury corpses on the spot and in many cases
necessitate carrying them miles for disposal. Our agriculture ministers
Nick Brown and Elliott Morley, their hands tied by the new
legislation,  simply deny that this creates any risk of spreading
infection. If they study that meticulous1969 report they will see just what
a dreadful gamble they are having to take.

Top

Legal challenge.

MEDIA INFORMATION
http://www.sheepdrove.com/fam.htm
EMBARGOED UNTIL 0815 TUESDAY 20 MARCH 2001
ATTENTION: POLITICAL, AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENTS

Leading entrepreneurs to back High Court challenge by Cumbrian farmers to
mass slaughter policy

Peter and Juliet Kindersley, the publishing entrepreneurs who were behind
Dorling Kindersley books, have announced their intention to launch a
judicial review of the Government's proposed policy of slaughtering
apparently healthy livestock in the restricted areas affected by the foot
and mouth outbreak.

Together with his wife, Mr Kindersley, now a commercial organic farmer in
Berkshire is providing legal and financial backing to an action by Cumbrian
farmers, whose healthy flocks face extinction.

He has pulled together a legal case, through solicitors Burges Salmon, and a
technical one, through the respected Elm Farm Research centre, a progressive
farming trust.

An application for judicial review is set for submission to the High Court
in London this week, and in view of the urgency of the situation, Burges
Salmon will be seeking an expedited hearing for the case.

Commenting on the forthcoming legal action, Peter Kindersley said:

'Given the strength of the case for the alternatives to the mass slaughter
of healthy livestock, such as vaccination, I simply couldn't stand idly by.

'Slaughter does have a place if it can outpace the spread of a disease. But
there are no prizes for coming second in a race against an epidemic. I'm
afraid the evidence is that this is now what is happening.

'In such circumstances, there are mainstream veterinary, economic and
historical reasons why the cull is wrong.

'The judicial review will test the rational basis upon which Ministers have
arrived at this course of action.

'If the court agrees with our arguments, we will be asking it to call a halt
to the slaughter of healthy animals and to refer the matter back to
Ministers for urgent reconsideration.'



One of the farmers involved in the case, Tom Lowther, who farms at Askham in
Cumbria, said:

'My farm faces destruction because Ministers appear unwilling to consider
the alternatives to an outmoded and disproportionate response to this
disease.

'Mass culling of healthy animals was developed in the 19th century in
response to a wider and more serious range of animal diseases, like cattle
plague.

'If it cannot match the spread of the infection, then has no place in the
age of modern vaccine science, where disease and inoculation induced
anti-bodies can now be distinguished.

'Export rules could soon be changed so that the use of vaccines will no
longer militate against our ability to trade livestock overseas.

'And, even with an export ban, the costs of the cull will outweigh those of
vaccination by many millions of pounds.'


For further information:

Media officer, Josephine Spiller
07977 102 981 or 020 7905 2459

Other useful numbers:

Lawrence Woodward, Director, Elm Farm Research Centre
01488 658298

William Neville, Partner, Burges Salmon
0117 939 2000

Tom Lowther, Askham
01931 712577 or 0860 728077

About the Kindersleys:

Peter and Juliet Kindersley founded the Dorling Kindersley publishing house
in the 1970s. Dorling Kindersley was sold to Penguin Books in 2000 for many
millions of pounds. They are commercial organic farmers in Berkshire. They
own over 2,000 acres with beef, sheep, poultry and cereals as well as a few
pigs. Details about the business can be found on their web site at
www.sheepdrove.com. A copy of the briefing document 'Why we must vaccinate'
can be found at this address.

About Elm Farm Research Centre:

Elm Farm Research Centre is a respected progressive farming trust with a
distinguished international council of management. Details about the centre'
s activities can be found at www.efrc.com.

About Burges Salmon:

Burges Salmon is one of the UK's leading commercial law firms, providing a
comprehensive service for business and private individuals in the UK and
overseas. With some 500 partners, the firm is widely recognised in a range
of areas, including agriculture and farming, company and commercial,
litigation, property and tax and trusts. Details of its practice can be
found at www.burges-salmon.com.

Articles   Section Index   Top

Foot and Mouth Disease:

An evaluation of the current control policy from a historical perspective
http://www.sheepdrove.com/fam.htm
By Abigail Woods MA MSc VetMB MRCVS
PhD student in the History of FMD in 20th Century Britain
Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine,
Manchester University.

Introduction



History is commonly used as a resource by MAFF to