Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR TIM
BENNETT, MR
DAI DAVIES,
MR JAN
ROWE AND
MS JENNY
SEARLE
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2003
20. You are right that there is supposed to
be an interim report, and, in fact, a Parliamentary Question which
I asked the Secretary of State just before Christmas, she said
she hoped to get the interim report out as soon as possible, but
did sort of mouth to me that that could be much earlier possibly
than even 2005. But, taking that we are still with that, surely,
as an organisation, you are slightly pre-empting the results of
Krebs, because you are calling for reactive trapping in known
hot spots. Now you cannot have it both ways, can you, you cannot
say, "Well, we'll support the Krebs trial because we want
to know what it says, but, by the way, we'll ignore the scientific
evidence that's being collected, because what we want to do is
just trap reactively in the hot spots"? How do you marry
together, what seem to me, those two opposing views?
(Mr Bennett) I think our position is extremely sound.
We have supported the trials, and I can tell you that is despite
much pressure from our members not to support the trials, because
we have seen, as an extent of all the evidence we have accumulated
in the past on this issue, that the Krebs trial was once again
an excuse to put off decisions that might have been unpopular,
let us put it as bluntly as that. While we have been accepting
and supporting and pushing along the Krebs trial, this disease
has not only spread to other parts of the country but the incidence
is much increased. Now all we are saying is, not to interfere
with the trial, but where you get into new hot spot areas, where
there is evidence that the wildlife has actually got TB, the same
rules should apply to the wildlife as apply to the cattle that
my members own. I think that does not affect the scientific integrity
of the Krebs trial, but it might just do something to slow down
and help to contain this disease until we come up with what Government
eventually are going to do, and must do, to start to take steps
to eradicate this disease.
21. If the report comes out, both the interim
and the final report from Krebs, in maybe 2003, '05 and '07, and
it says, "There is not overwhelming scientific evidence that
really links the spread of bovine TB from badgers into cattle,"
will your members accept that?
(Mr Bennett) If the report is based on good science
and it has got the scientific authority behind it, they will;
but, if I may say so, what my membership want, and the NFU has
advocated, is not just to say, "Let's wait and see what the
Krebs trials do," we are saying, "As an interim measure,
we ought to be reactive, in terms of the wildlife in the hot spots."
But I thought the solution to this crisis over this disease was
actually a more rapid development of a vaccine, and so we are
not sitting around waiting for this Krebs trial, we should be
using all the science that the world out there has got, world-class
science. There are people who are doing work on this around the
world, and we should be developing a vaccine more quickly, because,
in my opinion, that is the solution that actually takes this out
of the political arena and eradicates the disease. So I think
that is just as important, developing the vaccine and looking
at what everyone else is doing around the world, as the Krebs
trial.
22. Actually, you have almost answered my final
question to you, which was, obviously, there may be other ways
of exploring the development for future policy actions, and you
have mentioned vaccine, you have mentioned, obviously, supplementary
diagnostic tests that you would like to see in place. Do you have
any other steps that you would like to add to that, so that we
can have, shall we say, a much more positive development in the
future for policy options?
(Mr Bennett) What we feel actually is that this is
an issue that the Committee knows has been around for some time;
whatever we are doing at the moment palpably is not working, because
the disease is not being contained, let alone eradicated, so any
new ideas to contain this disease would be extremely welcome.
That is why I have advocated looking at what is going on around
the rest of the world, the use of BCG on the wildlife in Ireland,
and indeed in the southern hemisphere on the possums; so everything
that can be looked at should be looked at. And I do feel very
strongly that a vaccine development, just telling us it is 10
years away, and it has been 10 years away since I started farming,
is not acceptable. We are living in the 21st century, we have
made rapid scientific developments, and one starts to believe
the vaccine is not being developed because the companies that
could develop it will not be guaranteed enough of a financial
return because the Government will not be committed to an eradication
programme. If that is the case, I would like to see the Government
commit themselves to eradication, and with more resource going
into the development of a vaccine.
(Mr Rowe) Could I just add to some of
those points. I endorse wholeheartedly what Tim has said about
the development of a vaccine, and I think we all feel a vaccine
is the long-term and probably the most substantial answer we are
going to have to this problem, but it needs a lot of resource
and a lot of quick thinking put into it; with this current escalation
of the disease, we cannot afford to wait for another ten years,
it will be a disaster if we do. Which comes back to Diana's point
about why we want action outside the trial areas, within the hot
spots. What the Krebs trials were set up to do, effectively, was
not to try to prove the link, I think Professor Krebs came to
the conclusion that circumstantial evidence was so enormous that
there was definitely a link between TB in wildlife and TB in cattle;
what he was not certain of was how to break it. And, effectively,
that is what the trials, if you actually read, were set up to
try to do. The only evidence we have had in the past is that it
is virtually the wholesale slaughter of badgers seems to be the
only effective method. I think, if we come back, and hopefully
these figures are now being looked at in Defra, what we can see
is that the interim trapping policy, the Dunnet trapping, which
really was supposed to be in place for only 18 months and was
actually in place for nearer to 10 years, was actually having
an effect, and the moment the moratorium on any trapping came
along that was when this huge escalation in TB started, and carried
on and has got worse and worse. So that it might not have been
totally effective, but certainly it was having some effect, and
I think it was being done on a less rigorous protocol than we
would see in the reactive trapping area. Now I have two concerns
about the reactor trapping in the Krebs trials, that that is the
one area that is being very, very slow to get done in the trials,
and really needs a lot more effort putting into it, but the reason
we are calling for reactor trapping outside the trial areas is
just to try to contain the disease, to get some control over it.
Because we know the circumstantial evidence against this link
with the badger is absolutely overwhelming, we know it is there,
it is ridiculous to pretend it is not, and we just need to get
some sort of lid on what is happening at the moment until we get
the final results, basically.
Mr Wiggin
23. You referred to some trapping earlier; were
they releasing the lactating sow badgers, at the time?
(Mr Rowe) Yes, they were.
24. Would it not be sensible to suggest that
we could try vaccination in hot spots? I believe that the current
vaccination is about 60% effective, it is not widely used because
it interferes with the tests, and we could be vaccinating in some
hot spots and culling in others and just see which one was most
effective at reducing the spread of the disease?
(Mr Rowe) The vaccine at the moment is not licensed
for use. John Bourne, in ISG, will tell you much more about that,
I am not an expert on the processes that have to be gone through,
but it has to go through quite a long trial period, we need to
get the dosage right, the administration of it right, we need
to look at the effect on other species, possibly. It is not just
as easy as saying that there is a vaccine there; if you could
line up all the badgers and give them an injection it would be
a rather different matter, but it does not work quite like that.
25. I am not sure that is right, actually?
(Mr Rowe) They are actually doing some work on it
at the moment, but it is a little bit blind and a little bit experimental.
I gather what they are now doing is expanding their clear-out
area and vaccinating some of the badgers they are allowing to
restock, but I think it is on a bit of an experimental basis.
In this country, so far, the work on BCG vaccine really has been
absolutely nothing, other than casting our eyes on other people's,
and it has to go through quite a lot of official processes before
it could be sanctioned over here, I believe; but if it were a
possibility we would welcome it.
(Mr Bennett) Can I come back to that, because I think
it is very important. I said earlier, Chairman, that all possibilities
should be explored rapidly, and I think this is just one of those
that need to be looked at rapidly, and if it does pose even part
of a solution then we should look at a trial of it. There are
obstacles, but, hopefully, with the resources situation, some
of those obstacles can be cleared away a little bit more quickly.
Chairman: I think, with the forbearance of the
Committee, we will ask for some up-to-date information on what
is happening with vaccination, because I am afraid that there
are a number of myths, including various people making claims,
which I do not think is terribly helpful at the moment. So, through
you, Richard, I think perhaps we can get some information on that.
Mr Jack
26. If human beings manage to develop a vaccine
for themselves against TB, have you been told unequivocally that
it is not possible scientifically to do it for bovines?
(Mr Bennett) No. I think the work that has been done
around the world, and massive investment, in terms of a human
TB vaccine, which, all our understanding is, that we have been
told by scientists, is moving along much more quickly than it
had been for some time, individuals talk to us and say that we
could spin off from that research into cattle. We are told by
private companies, who I am sure will not wish to be named, that
they have got to make sure they get a commercial return for their
investment, and that means a long-term commitment from government,
and governments around the world, to eradicate cattle TB.
27. So, just to be totally clear, you have not
been told by the kinds of company that you are unhappy to name
that there is no scientific barrier to producing it, because you
made a very powerful statement that somebody said 10 years ago,
you said which was when you started, and you reckoned it would
be another 10 years before something might occur; it seems unusual
that there is now a growing problem, a growing market-place, and
you say that you have been told there is not a scientific barrier
to producing a working, safe vaccine for bovines against TB?
(Mr Bennett) We have not been told of any barrier,
we have been told that it has to be developed and they cannot
guarantee it, but certainly the evidence is that the vaccine could
be developed more quickly if there were seen to be, from individuals,
outside of government, by the companies, a bigger market for it,
because they will put their resources and their investment into
those areas where they will get the biggest return.
Chairman: Can we be clear, when we are talking
about vaccine, are we talking about a badger vaccine or are we
talking about a cattle vaccine?
Mr Jack
28. I am talking about bovine.
(Mr Bennett) It could be both, Chairman. I think,
eventually, it will probably have to be both, if you want to compete
.
Chairman
29. Some would argue that it cannot be both,
and that is one of the reasons we need clarification?
(Mr Rowe) If I could add a point there. Apparently,
for some reason or other, the cow is a very difficult animal to
get a vaccine for; it is actually proving very difficult to get
anything beyond BCG even for humans. Many drug companies have
been working for quite a long time to get a more successful, direly
needed, human vaccine; now, I think, with modern geno-technology,
it may be coming a lot closer. When it does, I am sure it may
be possible to tag it suitably, to use possibly even in wildlife
or in cattle, but one of the big complications of cattle is that
most vaccines are based on immune response but so is this test
we use for TB. And if we had to throw the tuberculin skin test
out of the window because we were vaccinating, we have an enormous
problem in terms of trade and recognising where the disease is;
so that any vaccine that is going to be used on cattle has quite
a number of problems, (a) what it is going to cost, (b) how often
it has to be administered, and c) particularly, that it has to
be able to differentiate itself very easily so that we can use
the TT test. That way, a vaccine for wildlife may be a lot simpler
to produce.
(Mr Bennett) Can I come back on this one, it is a
point I made very early on in giving evidence. I think, actually,
rather than just looking at what we are doing in the UK, we need
to start looking around the world at what science is doing around
the world and taking on board absolutely everything, because we
are now in such a serious situation with this disease that we
have to put all the resources we can actually to find out if someone,
somewhere, has got the answer, and we cannot just assume that
we are the only people that have got the solution.
Chairman: Colin, can you move on to other aspects
of scientific research.
Mr Breed
30. Looking at some of the other work that is
running alongside the triplet trials and such, firstly, the road
traffic accident survey, you have said that really it is not being
properly resourced and there ought to be a lot wider coverage
than that. What is the evidence you have got that it is not being
properly resourced, and what do you think the benefits will be
of getting much more extensive coverage?
(Mr Rowe) Basically, we learned through the TB Forum
and just experience locally that, because of the foot and mouth
interruption, it was just never taking place during that time,
it was very slow to get going after foot and mouth cleared up.
I think, finally, somewhere around sort of the middle to end of
last year, it started off again in the main seven counties where
the trial areas are in operation, and at the moment it is restricted
purely to those counties where the trial areas are. What we would
like is to extend it across the whole country, because it is the
only way we are going to get any sort of handle on badger epidemiology,
we just do not know where this disease is, in the badger population.
I would like something a bit more sophisticated than the road
traffic accident survey, but really that is all we have at our
disposal, but it is actually very limited at the moment.
(Mr Davies) We definitely need information, if there
is a correlation between TB in badgers and the hot spots themselves,
that will give us quite a lot of hints for the future, if we correlate
the two.
31. Presumably, therefore, you do not think
there has been enough work done on the epidemiology to give us
the sorts of results we are looking for?
(Mr Rowe) In badgers, there is very little work at
all, we do not even know the proper head-count of badgers in this
country, it is pure estimation at the moment.
Mr Breed: You have called for a new survey,
have you not, on the whole?
Chairman: For a change in the TB99 form, particularly.
Mr Breed
32. How would you go about the sort of survey
that you are looking for in the overall badger population?
(Mr Rowe) There is work being done, I think, through
ISG, at the moment, on estimation of badgers, it is possible that
Chris Cheeseman later may be able to fill you in a little bit
more on details on that, and the sooner that work is done the
better, it is just not really being applied at the moment. And,
I think, as soon as we can get some more information about badger
population and where TB is in the badger population the better
it will be understanding how to try to break that link, or estimate
where the next risk areas are going to be. It is just that we
have so little information. This is a disease that exists in two
very big reservoirs that interact with each other, we know where
it is in the cattle population, or we have a pretty fair idea,
because we are testing, we have no idea where it is in the badger
population.
33. Part of the problem you indicate, in terms
of the information gathering, Defra's TB99 questionnaire, which
is rather lengthy, and everything else. I think you proposed some
changes to that; can you tell us what the reaction from Defra
has been?
(Mr Rowe) I think it has been very limited. Certainly,
ISG would like to see the TB99 work done; the problem is, it has
to be very contemporary, it cannot be something you go back to,
because it needs such a wealth of local knowledge from the farmer,
and remembering what cattle were in what field at what time, and
so on and so forth, and it has got to be done very soon after
an outbreak. The problem is that it also demands two controls
from similar herds that have not had TB. So actually it is a very
resource-hungry, information-gathering system; in theory, it could
provide a lot of very useful information. It comes back to the
husbandry thing, in particular, whether there are any particular
methods of husbandry that do help protect, or whatever, or there
is a risk husbandry, or whatever, but it is very cumbersome, and,
although potentially useful, it is so cumbersome that we said
it might be better to do a shorter, quicker version of it, more
often, and come to more or less the same sort of conclusion. It
was only because it just was not happening, we just wanted to
see something get going.
34. I think we can understand that, in terms
of the farmer's time, and everything else, but what information
that currently is being collected would you leave off it, would
you not bother to have collected?
(Mr Rowe) One would have to go through it in some
detail, and if you have ever seen the document, it is so thick,
it is a fantastically complicated sort of document, and also it
has to be done on two control farms; and I think it is now being
done, and hopefully some information will come from it. But it
was quite a cornerstone for gathering information, way back when
the trial started, and it just never really got going, it was
just totally underresourced; and that was why we suggested that
we would have to look in detail, admittedly, we have not, the
exact detail, of what we proposed in its place, but it was just
an idea that we floated, to get something moving on it.
35. Finally, on the gamma interferon blood test,
presumably you are in favour of that, you were saying that it
could take a couple of years to get going on that; how would you
propose speeding up that blood test?
(Mr Rowe) It may be quite difficult to speed it up,
and the tests are designed really to try to evaluate how useful
it is. I think we are beginning to get some feedback that the
trials, using gamma interferon, are taking rather a lot of cattle
out of some herds, and I think this is beginning to put people
off, farmers, taking part in the trials. Now that needs looking
at, as to how we can incentivise farmers to take part in the trials,
because I think it is something we need desperately, is a more
enhanced, bigger and better test, and we have put a lot of faith
in gamma interferon, but we do not want to put blind and false
faith in it. We need the work done, but we need to make sure that
the farmers who are going to take part in this work, some way
or other, do not go through ridiculous hoops to help out everybody
else. I think there could be a bit of a problem there.
Mr Wiggin
36. This is really quite concerning, because,
if the gamma interferon test is good and suddenly the number of
cattle that it is showing up as having TB is much higher than
you would expect, this is a huge weakness in the whole scientific
argument?
(Mr Rowe) The gamma interferon test is much more sensitive,
in other words, it will show up TB or show up immune response
much better than the tuberculin test, but it is much less specific,
in other words, it gives you a lot of false positives. One problem
we have in this country is avian TB, which overlies, which is
why we have this comparative skin test; a lot of other countries
only have the bovine skin test, they do not need the comparative
avian one because they do not have avian TB like we do. So there
are greater complications with the gamma interferon test in this
country than there are in others where it has been piloted. And
that really is what the test is designed to try to sort out, how
useful a tool it is; the perception is that it could be very useful
and it could clear up things. But I think it would be wrong to
say that all these extra animals that it is taking out of the
herd have all got TB, they may well not have, and this is what
is frightening a lot of farmers.
37. How many tests have gone on so far, because,
certainly, my constituency is a test area and I have not heard
of any?
(Mr Davies) As far as I know, there is one in our
area, the first test that was done, 50 animals were taken out,
out of a herd of about 120; well I think that put off most of
the neighbours, because they knew very well that they would not
be able to run their businesses, and just milking 70 cows they
just would not be able to pay their bills. So, on the advice from
their local vet, they would not entertain it.
38. So that, effectively, what you are saying
is the whole test is going to grind to a halt?
(Mr Rowe) I think we need to look at that one very
closely with Defra.
Mr Jack
39. We have got an industry-wide forum; do you
think it gets sufficient information from Defra about its work
in the area, and, as there is a forum already in existence, why
was it necessary to call them `industry group', which seems to
have a sort of parallel existence?
(Mr Rowe) As I sit on the Forum, Chairman, I will
take that one up. To deal with the last question first, the industry
group I think is looking at just more practical details, the sort
of day-to-day effect on the farm; rather the Forum was actually
taking a much wider view, with other stakeholders' interests involved
in it. The industry forum really is looking at the practicalities
of managing test procedures, farm restocking, destocking, and
so on and so forth; so they have slightly different roles to play.
The Forum was there really, we understood, in the first place,
to discuss all the elements of TB, and I would say we are far
from being short of information, we are almost flooded with information
at the TB Forum. But, I think, as members on that Forum, we find
one of the biggest problems and stumbling-blocks to it is the
lack of discussion about how to deal with the wildlife issue,
particularly when it comes to any talk of culling the wildlife,
it just gets stopped dead in the Forum, and we feel that is totally
unrealistic, but we do not want it to be dominated totally by
that aspect of it. But the TB Forum, to be of any value, must
discuss all aspects of TB, in both reservoirs, and how to control
the disease, because to pretend there is no overlap and interaction
between the two is just plain ignorance and naivety. And it is
the one thing that is lacking, actually it is why we left the
Forum at one stage, because we were so frustrated with this lack
of discussion, even, about the influence of wildlife on TB, it
centres just wholly and totally around cattle, and cattle testing
and cattle movement, and totally ignores one side, one huge and
enormously important side, of the TB equation. And we hope that,
sooner or later, that gets addressed by the Chairman and that
comes back in for discussion.
|
