Originally from: Mary Critchley
                        
Now that the Lessons Learned session is over http://www.warmwell.com ought to be back to normal until I travel home.

There was a lot to say on warmwell today on the scrapie issue. I can't help feeling that there is something really quite underhand – indeed sinister – going on here. The SEAC/FSA activity and spin is too blatant to be ignored. What is their game? If their main concern were the real safety of food they would NOT be stifling the research efforts of rival scientists into BSE. Their arrogant pronouncments about older sheep, beef and goat meat from other countries is infuriating Africa. There is little doubt that they have been softening up public opinion and sheep societies (semen banks!) for a mass cull. But why? It's hard to escape the speculation that they want to be able to boast of a completely scrapie free national flock. The argument that to allow genotypes susceptible to scrapie to go on breeding is "irresponsible" is so persuasive (although only of any value if the link with CJD were established which it is not) that they used it to get through their nasty little SI 843. Yet the slaughter of susceptible animals is NOT required in Europe. It's no good their denying that this was Animal Health Bill by the back door. It was.

I get worried every time I remember that there is such a close link between Roy "FMD"Anderson and John"GMOs" Krebs (SEAC/FSA) and that it is their pronouncements that are so fuelling the fear of CJD from sheep. I very much fear that David Byrne is on the same "net".

What do others think? I am entering the realms of fantasy now Jones?

May 24 ~ 'Officials ignored local knowledge'
FARMERS in Eden echoed stories from others in the region – of many unanswered questions and poor communication – when they met members of Cumbria's Independent Foot-and-Mouth Inquiry Panel at a public meeting in Appleby. .... For many, it was a chance to tell their story to the eight-strong panel, which included Nick Gent, a consultant for health protection in Cumbria and Lancashire; Andrew Humphries from Voluntary Action Cumbria and John Hetherington, a retired farmer and former agricultural educationalist. John Sanders, a farmer from Newby, who lost 150 adult sheep and 200 lambs in the outbreak, criticised the lack of communication from DEFRA and told how he received four letters from DEFRA officials asking to come and inspect his sheep after they had been culled. But he welcomed the opportunity to meet with panel. He said: "The meeting has been very balanced." He wanted to look to the future and know that, if an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease happened again, things would be handled differently. "Farmers feel there have been too many unanswered questions. In the early stages of the outbreak people were scared of the MAFF officials and I don't think that would happen again. The officials isolated local vets whereas they should have worked with them and got their co-operation." That sentiment was supported by Appleby vet Helen Gould, who felt local knowledge was not made use of during the outbreak. "We knew where biosecurity was good and where help was perhaps needed. People in the area have suffered both financially and psychologically," she said. Professor Phil Thomas said...people wanted to make sure there was a better way of handling things. May 24 ~ Another case of unanswered questions and poor communication? Professor Phil Thomas has written to Margaret Beckett, secretary of State at DEFRA, inviting her or her ministers and officials to give evidence to the inquiry. The ministry is expected to decline to send any representative in person as it did with the Devon and Northumberland inquiries. Professor Thomas submitted with his invitation a list of 28 detailed questions for Mrs Beckett and her ministry. The letter was sent on May 8, but as the Gazette went to press last night (Thursday), the minister had not acknowledged its receipt. The Gazette will report the ministry's response as and when Mrs Beckett or her colleagues reply.
May 24 ~ " As there is no known test for TSE on living animals, all those deemed to be susceptible, would have to be slaughtered. The inspectors thus acquire very extensive powers
and there is virtually no appeal for the farmer or animal owner. Since all animals are deemed to be TSE susceptible, pets are at risk as much as livestock. Powers of entry given to inspectors were exactly the ones that disturbed people who read the Animal Health Bill, which, pace Lord Whitty's pronouncement on Farming Today, dealt with scrapie as well as foot and mouth. One cannot quite escape the suspicion that, having failed to pass the Bill, DEFRA is putting the same provisions into a regulation. ......The spectre of a country without any regulations that control a devastating disease, raised intentionally by the Minister, Lord Whitty, was just that: a spectre. It seems to have fooled a number of people inside and outside the House of Lords. " (an article by Dr Helen Szamuely)

May 24 ~ More damaging regulations for food-producing small farmers There is a new Statutory Instrument out, which will come into effect on June 7: 889. Title: FOOD, ENGLAND – The Meat (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) (England) Regulations 2002. Our Westminster correspondent writes, "There is not a great deal we can do about as it is a European regulation being put into British law, though at some point we shall have to compare them quite carefully..... it is an absolute killer and will do enormous damage to small food producing companies, including farmers who want to expand their activity into food processing of some description. This is not our government but definitely EU stuff. Meat is the first. The other food producers will be hit later. There is a long and complicated history behind HACCP. To some extent, it is what people wanted but there are problems in that, inevitably the EU introduced both testing of process (HACCP) and testing of produce (older method). Precisely what we were trying to avoid. I believe our report on the meat industry actually said that. " We will provide further details of all this as soon as they reach us.

May 24 ~ Margaret Beckett's reply on 20th to Peter Ainsworth about the SI843 was surely somewhat inaccurate?
Peter Ainsworth asked what consultation had been undertaken, and with whom, over the content of Statutory Instrument 843 on TSEs. [56039]
Margaret Beckett said (see answer) " My Department consulted more than 700 key stakeholders on draft proposals for the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, representing renderers, slaughterhouses, farmers, knackers, hunt kennels, veterinary, consumer and medical interests and enforcement authorities. That is, the people who are actually affected or need to know" Odd then, that a stakeholder raised this under Any Other Business on May 9th, saying he had read about the slaughter provisions of the SI only that day in the Telegraph. Could it be that the London stakeholders were not considered "key" – or was it that the 700 had been pointed only towards the regulations of MBM?
Margaret Beckett continued...." The consultation package was distributed in February 2002. It was posted on the Department's website and a copy placed in the Library of the House. " Why then was there an email received from Defra in early May which tells us that the "proof copy" would be put up on the website later that day?

May 24 ~ Warmwell gives evidence to the Lessons Learned Committee
The reasons for warmwell's rather erratic appearance lately has included the need to take time out to go through material in order to present an overview of our reading of the crisis for the Lessons Learned Committee. Since there are now getting on for 1500 files on warmwell, this is not an easy thing to do. We sympathise with Dr Anderson's team for the massive task that must be undertaken if a fair report is to be presented by July. One consolation must be that the official Lessons Learned team – unlike warmwell – does receive financial and secretariat help in its attempt to uncover the truth. Details of what was presented yesterday in Whitehall will appear shortly. Although we didn't stress this point, it may occur to the Anderson team to wonder why so many disinterested ordinary people are still, as a result of an outrage that does not diminish with time in spite of the government's best efforts, pouring their energy, time and money into the foot and mouth issue. It would have been forgotten with the relief of 1968 had it been handled correctly.

May 24 ~ Why is the Food Standards Agency inciting sheep fears again? The TSE slaughter regulations are now in place. The sheep of Britain – those that survived FMD, and many millions did not – are looking increasingly vulnerable. While SEAC rubbishes any serious research into BSE and the real possibility that links with vCJD are not provable, the FSA has been, once again, cleverly not quite saying that sheep pose a real threat to the population. Subsequent headlines that help them in their task include: "Sausage skins face ban over BSE fear "(Telegraph); Food experts assess sheep BSE risk (BBC); BSE 'still reaching Britain in feed' (BBC); Agency warns of BSE food 'risk' ( BBC note the subtle use of quotation marks – but few will); Safeguards urged over sheep BSE risk (Reuters) Calls for a ban on sheep intestines (ITV); Food agency to spell out risks of disease in sheep (Guardian It will be noted that no quotation marks appear around the word "risks" in this headline)
But we also got yesterday the story that T-bone steak is likely to return to EU dinner tables – so some part of common sense may be returning through one door while more rushes out of another . South Africa's distress that the FSA has – warned that South African meat posed a higher risk of being contaminated by foot-and-mouth disease were untrue, the department of agriculture and land affairs said on Wednesday. Departmental director-general Bongiwe Njobe, who expressed shock and concern about the allegations, said in a statement the UK Food and Standard Agency had no proof for the speculations.
Having no proof does not appear to worry the FSA about making speculations that can, almost at a stroke, destroy lives and livelihoods. And, as has been noted, the legislation to kill all not even suspect but only susceptible animals has been British law since April 19th.

May 24 ~ "What Tony Blair is doing is not so much riding to the defence of science as riding to the defence of industry "
Natasha Walter in the Independent yesterday put it very well. ".....Tony Blair should be aware that by far the most unsettling arguments against the release of GM crops into the environment are now coming from scientists. These scientists are arguing that the newest developments in genetics suggest that genetic modification cannot be as straightforward and predictable as some would have us believe. There are many reasons for people to feel suspicious about the use of genetically modified organisms in the environment – from the way that they might threaten biodiversity by encouraging heavy use of pesticides, to the way that the technology is controlled by big business, so disempowering small farmers who become reliant on corporate products. But the most compelling dissent comes from scientists who are suggesting that genetic modification of crops relies on over-simplistic science."
We note that the Guardian today has more rhetoric on the subject. "Now the science budget was increasing by 7% a year in real terms; and – in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, the medical charity – £1.75bn had gone into the renewal of equipment and conditions in laboratories and universities. Instead of a continuing brain drain, there were signs of a "brain gain"...."
Do we not remember also a rather insane vain brain pain when bottles of mashed brains were confused, very nearly resulting in the slaughter of the entire sheep flock? Perhaps science should, after all, be tempered with common sense and ethics.
"In GM crops, I can find no serious evidence of health risks. But there are genuine and real concerns over biodiversity and gene transfer ," said our Prime Minister, the Science Champion – with quite mind-boggling naivety..