APPENDIX 23
Memorandum submitted by the Royal College
of Veterinary Surgeons (P23)
Thank you for your letter of 17 January inviting
the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to submit evidence for
the Committee's further inquiry. Our comments on the issues raised
by the Committee are below.
Autumn package of measures: licensed movement
off farm of non-reactor cattle in specified circumstances
The previous movement restrictions always caused
considerable economic damage to TB-restricted farms. There were
also a considerable number of occasions where welfare problems
emerged from overcrowding because farmers were forced to keep
animals which normally would have been sold and for which they
had no permanent accommodation. The licensed movement off such
farms of non-reactor cattle in the specified circumstances is
sensible, should not significantly increase the risk of spread
of TB and should prevent possible welfare problems. One of our
Council members has commented:
"These measures are being successfully used
in the west country. The SVS have been extremely helpful in the
process. The result is that a number of farmers with long standing
problems have been able to move cattle. As far as I am aware there
have been little problems with moved animals subsequently testing
positive to TB."
Autumn package: imposition of movement restrictions
on herds with overdue tests
This would have the full support of the veterinary
profession. Because of the long list of overdue tests following
foot and mouth disease the delay in implementing this rule is
reasonable. It is too early to be able to measure the effect.
It is encouraging to note that the number of overdue tests is
falling, as predicted, and it is hoped to be cleared by the spring.
(The Veterinary Record of 26 October 2002 printed a letter from
the Presidents of RCVS and of the British Veterinary Association
urging practices which act as Local Veterinary Inspectors for
DEFRA to take a number of steps to help clear the overdue tests.)
The veterinary profession has co-operated fully to reduce the
backlog as fast as possible, bearing in mind the reluctance of
many farmers to have their animals tested during the summer months.
Autumn package: gamma interferon pilot study
We welcome the introduction of this test and
the pilot study. However it should be noted that the test will
not be the panacea we are all seeking. It still suffers from relatively
poor sensitivity, so it will not detect all animals incubating
TB. It will however detect a small number that are not detected
by the skin test. As the Irish have discovered it should have
a role in herds that appear to be chronically infected and repeatedly
suffer a small number of reactors or inconclusive reactors and
consecutive tests.
Autumn package: establishment of industry group
The group has met and provided a useful forum
for discussing the changes in the control measures. There was
however a sense of frustration that the problem was fast getting
worse with no hope on the horizon of any real measures to control
the disease.
Progress on the development of a vaccine
As far as we know there have been no significant
developments. There have been claims in the Farmers Weekly recently
that some pharmaceutical companies could speed up the development
of a vaccine, given the right financial incentive by Government.
We are not in a position to comment on these reports except to
say that pharmaceutical companies worldwide are carrying out research
into vaccines for TB in humans and if any prove successful this
will help in the search for a vaccine against bovine TB.
Implications of the delays to the Krebs trial
This is cause for serious concern because there
will inevitable be delays before the results are finally known.
Furthermore many herds in the trial areas were culled out with
foot and mouth disease and with no activity for 12 months there
is a real danger that anything gained in the first two years might
have been lost because of badger re-population. As we have stated
in previous submissions we believe that there is an urgent need
for a "Plan B" and this suggestion has been ignored
by DEFRA. The large increase in the number of infected farms during
2002 just confirms our previous worries and the need for urgent
alternative action is greater now than ever so that the increase
in incidence that is happening year on year can at least be minimised.
There are a number of herds in the FMD areas that were not culled,
were subject to strict biosecurity rules and moved no cattle onto
the farm for nearly a year, yet when they received their first
TB test following the removal of movement restrictions they suffered
TB reactors. There are many rumours of farmers illegally removing
badgers following a positive TB test and we are concerned that
if this is true it will adversely affect the statistical robustness
of the trial.
The Government's response to the recommendations
of the Agriculture Committee
There are two areas on which we would like to
comment.
First, paragraph 15 of the Government's memorandum
referred to its examination of the possible health risks from
the consumption of meat from animals with evidence of infection.
The Government appears intent on relying entirely on scientific
advice before a decision is made on salvaging carcasses derived
from TB reactors for human consumption. We believe this is an
area where public perception is likely to prove more important
than scientifically based evidence. While it is dangerous to ignore
advice based on scientific evidence, in this case the potential
risks to the beef industry far outweigh the income from the salvage
of such carcasses. We hear anecdotes that some milk purchasing
companies and even one retailer have tried to refuse to collect
milk from restricted herds. We are not aware of the outcome if
these stories are correct.
Secondly, the Agriculture Committee noted that
the possibility that the Krebs trial might not produce a clear
result and urged Ministers to recognise that the trial might have
to be extended or some Plan B found. There appears to be no progress
toward developing and testing such a plan before the results of
the trial are known. This topic has been ongoing in the TB Forum
as long as the Forum itself but is always met with resistance
from DEFRA officials and the conservationist representation on
the Forum. With the serious increase in the incidence of bovine
TB, the spread into areas of the country which were previously
unaffected and the inevitable delays caused by foot and mouth
disease the need for a Plan B is now greater than ever.
30 January 2003
| 
