More of the same Opinion & Comment / Information Releases from other Sources Posted by JimEdwards on Oct 31, 2004 - 05:55 PM [1]The most recent report on bovine tuberculosis (TB) from the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRACom) was hardly hard-hitting, and the Government’s response, which was published last week, is equally bland. The EFRACom’s report was published in July, following an inquiry which specifically looked at responses to the problem other than culling badgers (see VR, July 17, p 65). This must have come as something of a relief to the Government, which, in its response (available at www.publications.parliament.uk [2], seems to bend over backwards in trying to agree with the committee’s recommendations while avoiding any firm commitments for the future. The lack of political cut and thrust in the exchange is illustrated by the EFRACom’s recommendation urging all concerned to respond positively to the challenges of bovine TB. This is reasonable, but not exactly controversial. Not surprisingly, the Government agrees and, on publication of its response, the animal health minister, Mr Ben Bradshaw, said it particularly welcomed this recommendation. The Government also agrees with the EFRACom’s view that farmers should demonstrate best practice in relation to husbandry and that ‘given that badger culling is unlikely to begin imminently, and that in any event it is likely to form only part of the response to the disease, it is vital that no stone is left unturned in dealing with bovine ’. It says that it will be using the results of the analysis of data obtained from the TB99 survey to identify factors and actions that farmers can take to reduce the risk of bovine TB and that, in an initiative under the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (AHWS), it has set up a working group to encourage and support farm health planning as an everyday activity. Elsewhere in its response, it reiterates a point it has made repeatedly during development of the AHWS, namely, that ‘Government action alone is not enough to have an impact on the spread of this disease and it is important that we work in partnership with key stakeholders who also need to play their part.’ Rather more enigmatic is the Government’s response to a recommendation from the EFRACom that a decision to adopt badger culling should not be taken prematurely and that a useful decision cannot be made until the results of the Irish ‘Four Areas Study’ and the Randomised Badger Culling Trial have been received and properly assessed. Here, the Government simply ‘notes the Committee’s views’ and ‘reaffirms its commitment to making any decision on badger culling on the best available evidence base’. A degree of clarification of the Government’s position on this issue came in a significantly more robust exchange in the House of Lords last week when Lord Whitty, the minister for food and farming, was questioned by peers on the measures available for controlling bovine TB. He said that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial would be completed in 2006 and that, ‘Until that point, we will not have the full picture of how the different methods of control or non-control of badgers impact on the spread of disease.’ The Government, he remarked, liked to make policy on a scientific basis, and the trial would show the scientific basis for any further action. Pressed on the role of badgers in the spread of disease, he further remarked, ‘As for badgers, badgers do not move from Somerset to Cumbria; it is cattle or personnel movements that have spread the disease long distances.’ Responding to another recommendation from the EFRACom – that it should provide financial incentives to farmers to join a pilot trial of the interferon-gamma test (see VR, July 10, pp 37–38) – the Government expresses disappointment at ‘the current low level of farmer commitment’ to the project but, while describing various initiatives aimed at improving recruitment, makes it pretty clear that financial incentives are unlikely to be an option. Given its focus, it is perhaps surprising that the EFRACom inquiry did not consider issues such as testing frequencies and controls on the movement of cattle from high–to low–risk areas. These form part of the BVA’s policy on bovine TB (which can be viewed on its website, www.bva.co.uk [3]) and, in the current circumstances, probably represent the most practical option for responding to the problem in the short term. To an extent, they are currently in the process of being addressed through a package of short-term measures announced by the Government in September (see VR, September 25, p 381) and through the establishment of a working group to develop proposals for the pre-movement testing of cattle, for implementation in spring 2005. In the meantime, the Government is in the process of revising its whole strategy on bovine TB. The challenges were set out in a consultation document issued at the beginning of this year (see VR, February 14, pp 186–187; February 21, p 217). This makes depressing reading, but probably provides the clearest indication yet of where government policy is heading. The Government clearly recognises the significance of bovine TB; indeed, in the debate in the House of Lords last week, Lord Whitty described it as ‘the most serious animal health problem that faces this country’. Despite this, and despite the steps now being taken, its response to the EFRACom continues to suggest a lack of urgency in its approach to the disease, which is worrying. It is encouraging that it is now considering steps to tackle the problem in the short term. What is less encouraging is that the need for such measures was apparent when the present policies were introduced six years ago. This article is from World Veterinary Association   http://worldvet.org/ The URL for this story is:   http://worldvet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2125 Links in this article   [1] http://www.vetrecord.co.uk/   [2] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/   [3] http://www.bva.co.uk/