Foot and mouth and the world agricultural business
By Dr Ian Gibson MP

In a recent article published by the Guardian, a veterinary surgeon challenged the emphasis placed on the slaughter strategy. In it she stated that the government’s position was solely triggered by loss in productivity of recovered animals, and the foreseeable decrease in exports.

Several points regarding today’s farming strategies around the world come to mind, some of which, inevitably involve the sometimes unnecessary and chaotic movement of livestock from country to country as well as domestically. We know that livestock imported to the UK from countries that have had foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks within the last two years, or animals which have been vaccinated against the disease, are tested before entering the country. However, how can one be absolutely certain that, within a global market economy, the primary origin of the animals is indeed the one that is stated, and not a second or third country down the line?

When the size of the outbreak is too difficult to be managed, either by the numbers of infected stock, widespread location of foci and/or disposal of infected animals, other strategies should be taken into account. Such is the case of vaccination.

The use of vaccines against FMD can be applied to two different circumstances, very different indeed: prophylactic and emergency-driven. Council Directive 85/511/EEC Article 1 explicitly allowed the use of vaccination against FMD in member states. In 1990, Council Directive 90/423/EEC amended the original document. Article 13(1) of the 1990 Directive stated, ‘The use of foot and mouth vaccines is prohibited’. However, 13(3) provided that if foot and mouth disease had been confirmed and threatened to become extensive, emergency vaccination might be introduced. It did work in some recent cases, such as Albania and neighbouring Macedonia in 1996, with elimination of outbreaks within 12 weeks and three weeks respectively. So the inevitable question is: what does the government consider to be an emergency situation?

Vaccination might not be the final solution to this problem, at least not with the currently available vaccines, but it should be considered a valuable tool to be used against further spread of the disease. Today’s vaccines available for FMD consist of inactivated viruses. This raises several problems, including the impossibility to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals. The new developments of recombinant vaccines could be the end of such a problem. Animals vaccinated with this new technology could be easily distinguishable from infected animals. More important, animals would not be at risk of becoming infected by the presence of active viral particles in the vaccine itself. However, unless such a vaccination policy would be taken up by all nations, world wide, we could end up with a split in the market between countries that live with the disease and countries that have opted for a disease free status, since vaccinated animals can act as carriers for the disease.

It is, as always, a cost/benefit analysis. Vaccination has to be an on-going process, due to the short-term protection against infection. But when we consider the potential for more of these ‘emergency’ situations arising in the future as a direct consequence of globalisation, it might turn out to be a very little price to pay for safe and reliable food production. Consumers and governments feel happy with the availability of cheap, competitive goods in the market, but will this strategy be sustainable in forthcoming years? We might right now have the best chance to review the failure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take up and use scientific advice. To increase its research output can only link up with this crazy world system of food production which ignores sustain-ability, encourages poor animal welfare and problems related to poverty in the developing world and in the UK. It is time now, before a new crisis emerges.