F&D - UPDATE 9

Dr. Richard North PhD. [UKIP]
Research Director EDD [European Parliament]
21 April 2001
NFU POSITION ON VACCINATION

NFU POSITION ON VACCINATION 

In a remarkable attempt to justify an untenable position, the NFU's president, Mr Ben Gill, has written an open letter to his members. The following is a critique of his efforts. 

Overview 

In a self-evident statement, Mr Gill reaffirms his support for the government's strategy for tackling FMD - i.e., the NFU continues to support a policy which has resulted in the slaughter of over a million animals, some 95 percent of which have been healthy. This, Mr Gill writes, is a "tough but correct approach". 

He then notes that "there have recently been signs that some in Government favour a shift in strategy by carrying out a limited programme of vaccination of cattle…" and describes days of "intensive discussions with Government scientists and officials on this issue…". 

From these, Gill's "impression" is that "there remain too many uncertainties for the Government to be able to announce a change in strategy". Thereby, the provisional plans for vaccination remain "on hold" - instead of vaccination, we have vacillation. 

Questions and Answers 

What appears to be part of the delaying strategy by the NFU - or a somewhat disingenuous attempt not to appear "bloody minded" about vaccination, while actually sabotaging attempts to change the policy - the NFU has posed a list of "over 50 questions" to the MAFF "to seek to establish the short and long term veterinary and economic implications of vaccination" as well as "the merits of any other biosecurity measures". Gill reduces these to "four funda-mental questions": 

1.	What impact would vaccination have on the duration of the epidemic? 
2. Would more or fewer animals be slaughtered if vaccination were carried out, compared to the existing "24/48 hour" strategy alone? 

3. What would be the practical, economic and commercial consequences of vaccination for the livestock industry? 

4. What additional precautionary measures and husbandry practices might impact favourably on the epidemic? 

Interim answers have been provided by MAFF but Mr Gill decries these as not being "full or unequivocal". In fact, most of the questions have been answered fully. Mr Gill's problem is that he does not like the answers. Of the crucial question on the "economic and commercial consequences" of vaccination, the NFU asked whether farmers (effectively, his members) will be compensated for losses incurred as a result of vaccination. The answer was unequivocal - it was "no". That does not suit Mr Gill. 

Carriers 

Then Mr Gill dwells on one particular aspect of vaccination, of trivial importance, which he blows up into a major problem. He points out that "there is conflicting veterinary advice as to the risk the vaccinated cattle pose as potential 'carriers' of the disease and, hence, the extent to which vaccination could both prolong the disease and require further slaughtering". 

The MAFF, itself, has been unequivocal in its answer to the NFU - something which Gill failed to mention: "There is no reason why vaccination of cattle of itself should prolong the epidemic as the scientific evidence is that the chances of vaccinated carrier animals infecting other non-vaccinated livestock is low". 

It is known, in this context, that if cattle are exposed to the FMD virus shortly before, or in the few days after vaccination - when they have yet to acquire full immunity - they will not develop the full-blown disease but will develop 'carrier' status, harbouring and excreting the virus. Thus, potentially, they will become invisible sources of disease, spreading the disease without their showing any signs of it. 

However, the target for the proposed vaccination is healthy cattle, mainly those which have been housed over winter. Before being vaccinated, it is anticipated that they will be checked for absence of clinical signs of FMD and, therefore, the bulk of these cattle will, indeed, be heathy. Furthermore, MAFF advise that vaccinated cattle should be kept housed for a week after vaccination, to avoid them being exposed to infection. 

In the event, very few animals to which vaccine is administered would be infected and very few of those would be exposed to infection before they acquired full immunity. The problem is largely theoretical and, effectively, trivial - but not to Mr Gill. 

Trading restrictions 

Mr Gill also expresses concern about continued trading restrictions, remarking that - with vaccination - "it remains quite unclear as to how wide such restriction would be and how long they would be in place". 

Yet, in the Commission Decision 2001/257/EC of 30 March 2001, the nature of the restrictions and the time they would apply is made perfectly clear. Such restrictions would remain in force either for one year after the completion of the vaccination programme, or one year after the last outbreak, whichever is the later. Either Mr Gill and/or his advisors, is being disingenuous, or he cannot read. 

What is unclear though is when the Commission will lift general trading restrictions - with or without vaccination being used. The best information is that, because of the scale and longevity of the epidemic, the Commission will almost certainly require serological sampling, and the absence of significant seroposivity. 

The best estimate is that it will be 2-3 years before natural immunity - acquired from exposure to the FMD virus - will have declined sufficiently in the national sheep flock for the Commission to agree to resumption of intra-Community and third country exports. Since this period will be longer than the period for which post-vaccination restrictions would apply, the vaccination issue is an irrelevance. If Mr Gill did not know this, he could have found out. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that Mr Gill regards vaccination as "a leap in the dark". It is a darkness of his own making, inspired by his own ignorance. 

If he is ignorant, he is also indifferent to the fate of many cattle farmers. Gill remarks that "one of the reasons the Government has given for looking at vaccination is that there could be a temporary upturn in the number of cases as cattle are put out (sic) to pasture". But that "has already been factored into the predictions of the progress of the disease…". So that's alright then. Because it is "factored in", more cattle can die, with all the human misery that that entails. 

Despite this, Gill professes that "…the NFU has not taken the position it has on vaccination because it is indifferent to the mass slaughter of animals…". 

For his coup de grace, Gill then offers the observation that "it is by no means certain that the EU Regulation which permits vaccination in the UK allows the vaccinated animals to live, as the Government has claimed. The text is ambiguous". 

Not only does Gill wrongly identify a Commission Decision (2001/257/EC) as a regulation, he demonstrates also that he has completely failed to understand it. The text is far from ambiguous - it is crystal clear. Article 1.2 states that the permission to vaccinate is… 

"…subjected to the condition that such vaccinated animals are not subject to pre-emptive killing". 

If there was any ambiguity - which there is not - this could easily be cleared up by reference to the permission given to the Netherlands (2001/279/EC), to which Gill refers. This makes the distinction between "suppressive vaccination", where vaccinated animals are killed, and "protective vaccination" where animals are not. The UK has applied for "protective vaccination". 

Conclusion 

Gill, in the closing paragraphs of his letter, is keen to claim that that we (the NFU) "have never misled our members" about vaccination. Yet his letter is a travesty - misinformation, half-truths and special pleading. If this is the NFU working for the industry, farming would be better off without the NFU - and with vaccination. 

ends. 

There is NO CopyRight on this document, which is one of many 1,000s of items freely available on http://www.SilentMajority.co.UK [some 8Mbs.] & 10s of 1,000s of items on The SilentMajority CD [with over 40Mbs.] which contains the entire web site, 1,000s of apposite quotations, Articles, Speeches, ArtWork, & The FULL text of The EU Treaties, Several Related Books, The British Constitution, The American Constitution & Numerous related Items.
SilentMajority nor any associate thereof does NOT vouch for the veracity of the documents hosted on its site or CD nor any foreign language documents thereon & advises you consult your own solicitor on legal details as we do not accept liability for nor presume to give legal advice ourselves.
For a copy of the CD please mail payment of £20.00 for UK deliver or £25.00 for ALL other Countries payable to:
Greg Lance – Watkins,
Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
GREAT BRITAIN
For delivery of 2 x CDs
one for your own use
and one for on selling or donation to an individual of influence (media, politician, activist etc.)

IF YOU wish to use the Material Above, which is freely provided
Please have the Courtesy to Print It out in its entirety from start to finish with NO alterations, as displayed.
To This Point