There has to be a Better Way The 2001-2 Foot and Mouth Outbreak

I have lived and worked in the country most of my life. I do not pretend to know very much about farming, but I feel deeply sorry for the present predicament of farmers. I have learnt from my own profession that the opinions of even the most eminent experts or respected public officials are not written in tablets of stone. They can be challenged and tested in public meetings, public enquiries and the courts, and I believe it is the duty of lawyers, press and politicians to put their opinions under the most rigorous scrutiny and examination when they prejudice peoples' lives, property or interests. I know all three major political parties accept the current culling policy, but I still think it is right to voice the doubts which I am sure I share with millions of people.

Foot and Mouth is a nasty illness. I understand it makes the animal's mouth sore, so that it doesn't want to eat and so loses weight and marketability. It causes their milk to dry up. The virus, which mutates, is transmitted through the air like flu or the common cold, and most animals start recovering after about six weeks. However the animal's temporary loss of weght or milking potential can set farm incomes back for several months, and it is for this reason that few countries which are free of the disease want to trade live or dead animals with countries where the disease is endemic. It is a commercial issue, which has nothing to do with animal welfare or food hygiene.

The question is how best to eradicate the disease from the UK. There are two possibities: killing the animals, or vaccinating them. The officials have decided that the cull is the best policy, and indeed, this was successful in 1967. It depends on the animals that are in the infected herd being kept totally isolated from other animals before slaughter. It also depends on the use of disinfectant, because the virus, as well as being transmitted through the air, can also be picked up on the feet of people or other living creatures and carried to other places.

The logic behind the policy is baffling. A farm is not just the home of the farmer and farm animals. Wild deer cross the land unseen. So do other creatures. It may be possible to cull all the deer and dartmoor ponies, to gas all the badgers, and snare, shoot or poison  the more visible and "protected" wildlife in the countryside,  but there's no way you can hope to eliminate all the  otters, voles, moles, stoats, weasels, squirrels, mice, rats and rabbits who might unwittingly carry the desease. Crows are known to perch on the backs of sheep. So, are we going to try and kill all the crows? Honey bees have a range of six miles from the hive. So, should we put all the bee-keepers out of business? The huntsman can keep his horse in his stable and lock up his hounds in their kennels, but will that make the fox behave like a gentleman, and wash his feet in disinfectant, as he goes from one farm to another?  The householder can keep his dog on her lead and walk her on the road, but how many people are going to keep their cats at home and stop them roaming the fields at night?

So the culling policy worked in 1967, and it must be made to work today. The officials have to be realistic: they can't deal with the wildlife or with the pets, but they can order the wanton destruction of 300,000 healthy animals in Cumbria, and set up a cordon sanitaire of dead animals! They don't have to care about the people they put out of business. It's outrageous.

The World has moved on since 1967. At that time animals were killed locally: now superstores insist that they be taken long distances for slaughter at abbatoirs which are convenient for the superstores. So the disease now is sporadic, whereas in 1967 it was confined to one area.

In 1967 farms were smaller and viable. They could stand the losses incurred through a cull. In 2001, farms are bigger and profit margins have been squeezed so much by superstores, that the government has advised farmers to diversify - into providing bed and breakfast, caravan parks, or selling their own products or processing and delivering their own milk. Now, farmers cannot take guests or caravans onto their land, and they are in serious difficulty.

In 1967 the tourist industry was not half as important as it is now, and the government didn't have to bend over backwards to invite visitors back into the countryside in public advertisements, while the disease was at its height.

In 1967, most of our old heavy industry remained intact, and most people still lived close to their place of work. In those days extended families lived close together, and most of the people who lived in the countryside worked in the countryside. People travelled less and so it was much easier to contain the desease. This is no longer true. According to the National Statistics library, there were 14,096,000 licensed vehicles in 1967: in 1999, there were 23,975,000. In 1979, all  motor vehicles travelled 256 billion vehicle kilometers: the figure for 1999 is 467 billion vehicle kilometers.

In 1967 there were only two motorways: the M6 and the M1, and both were very much shorter than they are now. So, now extended families are more dispersed; more people commute to work, and fewer of the people who live in the countryside work there. Consequently,   there are almost twice as many cars travelling almost twice as many miles from one end of the country to the other. So, would it be surprising if animals were to pick up the infection from cars coming from infected areas? - when the animals cross the  roads the cars have driven over, or, when people from infected areas mingle with people from other areas in a tourist attraction like the  city of York, or, as often happens, when drivers disobey the Regulations through ignorance, thoughtlessness or sheer bloodymindedness?

So, how soon will the cull end? This Summer? This Christmas? Or next year? Will it end at all, or is it doomed to fail? How much money will be lost? Nine billion pounds, as forecast by one national newspaper or more? Is there no other way? Has the alternative been properly considered and evaluated on the basis of a full cost-benefit analysis? If so, has the analysis been made public?

We are told that vaccination will not work, because the virus mutates and there are different strains. Why then are we informed that the disease originated from a single source? Surely no more than one strain is likely to originate from a single source?

We are told that a policy of vaccination would be a confession to other countries that the disease is endemic within the UK. So, does the fact that most UK citizens have been vaccinated against smallpox, TB or polio mean that smallpox, TB and polio are endemic within the UK?

We are told that it would be difficult to identify vaccinated animals, because their blood samples would be similar to those of diseased animals. So, why can't the vaccinated animals have their ears tagged to distinguish them from the rest?

We are told that animals will still lose weight and milk-producing capacity if they are vaccinated - but wouldn't a vaccinated herd be better than no herd at all? And why would all animals have to be vaccinated anyway? Why couldn't there be a cordon sanitaire of vaccinated animals rather than a cordon sanitaire of dead animals - without all the horror, stench and  delays caused by waiting for the valuer, the slaughterer and finally the incinerators?

We are told that a policy of vaccination would destroy the integrity of the national herd: in other words, foreigners wouldn't want to buy our meat at all. This is a fine argument for a country which allows its own superstores to import meat from countries where Foot and Mouth, BSE and other diseases are rife! And, in any case, how long would a policy of vaccination have to stay in force? Only until the country is declared disease free - the same time limit as applies to the culling policy.  If most animals grown for meat are slaughtered within a year, won't the vaccinated animals  soon disappear from the food chain anyway?

Then it is said that it was the UK which persuaded the EU to adopt a culling policy rather than vaccination. Statements such as this suggests that there was a high level discussion, at which several eminent experts proposed different policies, and the UK official opinion prevailed. This suggests that the cull is not the only solution which has any credibility at an interstate level.

And finally, if  a policy of vaccination, is so detrimental, why is it that there are other countries in the developed world which have it, and seem to be able to manage without a cull?

Perhaps it is too late to contemplate a change of policy now - particularly, as all three of the main political parties accept the culling policy, and the EU has adopted it. Hopefully, the policy will be reassessed when the crisis is over. In my view, when so many businesses - in the tourist industry as well as in agriculture - are either in difficulties or have been forced to close through no fault of their own -  there must be a better way than a policy, which, taken to its logical conclusion, litters the Lake District with the stinking carcases of 300,000 healthy animals.