Gill Claims Vaccination Victory

Originally from: Dan Jay
                        
On the front page of today's FG is a picture of Ben Gill looking as gormless as ever!

By Allistair Driver

BEN GILL, president of the National Farmers' Union, has defended his controversial role in preventing animals being vaccinated against foot and mouth disease, ahead of his appearance at the European Parliament's inquiry into the crisis.

Mr.Gill, who will give evidence in Strabourg, on Monday, claims he won a major victory for famers by changing the Government's mind about vaccination.

The controversy over the subject has refused to die down a year on from when it split the farming community down the middle and evidence now being given to the various foot-and-mouth inquiries in bringing it to the fore again.

Mr. Gill had been villified for his role inj the saga in some sections of the media and by pro-vaccination campaigners who believed he was not represting the views of most farmers.

But the told FG how now feels totally vidicated. "There was a strong lobby last year for vaccination principally from green groups, led by the Soil Association. We won the argument and have been proved corect. The disease was eradicated by the cull and we were then in a position to re-establish our industry far earlier than anyone thought possible" he said.

"Nobody in their wildest dreams, even in August, thought we would have been allowed back into the sheep export markets in 2001. That had immediate effect on the sheep market price but if we had vaccinated we would have been looking at at least another 12 months."

He said vaccination would have created a two-tier market in the UK as retailers would have labelled vaccinated products. There are also unanswered questions about the effectiveness of the policy on disease control.

TONY BLAIR was ready to order vccination of cattle in Cumbria and Devon last Easter, in mid April. Mr. Gill said he had a private metting at the time with the Prime Minister, who promptly changed his mind.

Mr. Gill said the cull policy was right in principle given that the unavailabilty of a proper effective vaccination of policy meant there was no alternative. The cull was not sufficiently targeted at the farms most at risk but there was a lot of myth about animals being culled unnecessarily.

His evidence on vaccination will be monotored closely by pro-vaccination campaigners already angry at recent Government admissions that the NFU played a big role in its policy.

A major victory my foot!!!!!

DAN
                        

Originally from: David
                        
I suppose from a business point of view, Ben Gill is right with the attitude of cull like hell, get the compensation and get back to normal. What would have happened to all the finished animals had they been vaccinated and no one would buy them?? There would have been a continuation of the Government's Livestock Welfare for Disposal Scheme (LWDS) and the animals would have been culled, buried or incinerated and incineration uses a lot of N. Sea gas, which does not help if you are trying to comply with the Kyoto agreement on CO2 emissions.

FMD is a trade tool used by countries that have not got it to ward off competition from countries that have got it or who vaccinate. We (the EU) can now claim the high and mighty by declaring that we are once again free of the "dreaded" disease – until the next time.

David

Originally from: Dan Jay
                        
I sent this yesterday morning 05.04.02 and sent a copy of the article to Warmwell..

Why did it take so long to appear on this site sent on.06–04–02 time 15.10

Dan
                        

Originally from: and
                        
Hi david

reading between the lines of the article we see that it all boils down to economics, the NFU thought, (probably correctly) that vaccination would disadvantage UK farmers. The fact was that they claimed vacination didn't work, a claim which is becoming increasingly challenged, and one that in hindsight they are retreating from.

Gill claims that the success of the slaughter policy vindicates the NFU's position on vaccination, though how anyone can interpret the slaughter of 10 million animals as a 'success' is beyond me.

and

Originally from: David
                        
Hi Andrew,

How are you coping with the latest milk price reductions? I don't know which is worse – last years FMD with high feed costs or a milk price reduction of almost 5p a litre. That will slash my non existent profit by £45,000 so I think that the bastards have finally got us. I don't know whether to set fire to all my silage tyres on the M5 or just finally throw the towel in quietly. It makes the whole issue of vaccination totally irrelevant to me now – I couldn't care less. – David

However, my daughter has been researching vaccination as part of her Uni Thesis and this is a draft of her work to date:

"A vaccine is actually available to combat FMD. The problem with the vaccine is that it is impossible to tell the difference between a vaccinated animal and an animal that has had the disease. This is because one of the FMD tests checks the level of antibodies in the blood, which occur either from vaccination or exposure to the disease. Therefore it has been impossible to tell if an animal is immune or is carrying the disease. In the early stages when it has contracted the virus the animal has the virus in the blood, then as the disease progresses antibodies are developed in response as the immune system fights back. FMD is actually not fatal to the animal, yet slaughter has almost always been applied in order to prevent the rapid spread. In some previous outbreaks, some farms with very valuable pedigree stock were exempted from the slaughter program and the animals quarantined. The animal can make a full recovery, the blisters gradually disappearing, and therefore allowing weight to be regained and an increase in milk production in dairy animals. In an article entitled Dithering Over Vaccines, in the Western Morning News Farming Editor Carol Trewin states, "it appears that big business, rather than science, may be winning the argument. (on vaccines) There is growing opposition to using vaccination in the food manufacturing and retail sector. Food processors are fearful that it will hamper lucrative market exports, and the National Farmers' Union is fearful that retailers will use it to create a two-tier market, paying lower prices for milk and meat from vaccinated animals." However, cattle are already routinely vaccinated against pneumonia and leptospirosis, and sheep for many diseases including anthrax and lamb dysentery. The Food Standards Agency emphasises that food from vaccinated animals poses no threat to human health. The hindrance in applying vaccinations seems to come from the government level. Vaccines according to Carol Trewin "are ready, teams have been trained, and the European Union has given it's approval." A Gloucestershire pressure Group vets4vaccination; argue that vaccination would prevent the unnecessary slaughter of thousands of healthy stock. One member Mr Richard Rowe says, "...FMD may already be endemic in sheep." This statement makes the entire policy of animal slaughter insignificant. If this is the case vaccinations surely must be utilised. Marker vaccines are very recently available, which would enable one to tell if an animal has the virus, or has been vaccinated against the virus. As with all new policies however, red tape and paper work seems to be all that stands in the way of vaccination as a method of prevention and control of FMD.
(still not sure on this but implications for prevention with new vaccines available. Then discuss ring method vaccinations/ geographic model ?? According to Abigail Woods, a Ministry of Agriculture Veterinarian, vaccine for FMD began on the European Continent "where serum was used to restrict the scope and severity of outbreaks. In Britain however, scientists paid little attention to this line of research and after experimenting upon serum in the early 1930s concluded that it was unreliable and inappropriate for use in the field". The problem with slaughter researched after the 1967–8 outbreak and outlined by Haggett in The Geographical Structure of Epidemics is that by the time FMD disease was "positively identified in a core area, and slaughter carried out, virus particles had often been carried long distances by the wind, subsequently to be redeposited by the rain, beyond the FMD slaughter area". An important argument against the use of vaccines is that in order for it to be completely effective, the vaccination method would require complete vaccinations "out to a distance of 20 kilometres from an outbreak....to construct a cordon sanitaire to contain the disease." This has been in the past very difficult to seriously consider, given the number of vaccination teams that would be required. Modern farms may have between 100–500 (?) animals in total on the premises, and a zone this large could potentially contain over a hundred farms. Blanket vaccination, according to Tinline would be required within two days of the outbreak to ensure success. He evaluated three ring vaccination schemes that might make vaccination more feasible than a blanket vaccination. Ring vaccination I............??????????????
        It is interesting to note that like Britain and the European Union (EU), the USA also has a non-vaccination policy in the event of an FMD outbreak and are therefore also vulnerable to the rapid diffusion seen just last year in Great Britain, if this virus enters the country. There are some other issues with vaccinations, however. Local DEFRA (New British Agriculture Ministry) vet; Kate Woods outlined in an email some of the problems and precautions that prevent vaccination from being the obvious choice. These include: it is imperative that they are carried out before the disease strikes, and they must be carried out twice a year in order to maintain immunity, which has important time and financial implications for farmers already weighed down with regulations and paperwork. At least 80% of the animal population must be vaccinated, which causes problems in farms and animals that have rapid turnover rates such as pigs". – Hannah Goddard

Originally from: chris stockdale
                        
Goebbels would be proud of this man!! Gill may have won the argument (as in street brawl) by virtue of dissenting voices being disallowed ;but he did not win the debate because a) we never had one
 and b)such requires facts which were essentially withheld.

 I would contend that the disgraceful slaughter figures along with the allied human loss of life, suffering, pollution, financial damage, rampant homo-centric greed and mismanagement made manifest ,and damage to the credibility of our democratic process only testify to how wrong he got it.Still, as we all know,' if you tell a big one long enough and often enough
'... thank goodness such individuals as Nick Green and various others are prepared to dog down the Truth of this ghastly episode, to which I add my voice -- I'm right with you Nick, as long as it takes.

 Who is going to reply to Gill?
 Best wishes, Chris Stockdale
                        

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
In a message dated 06/04/02 19:18:15 GMT Daylight Time, ... writes:

I sent this yesterday morning 05.04.02 and sent a copy of the article to
Warmwell..

Why did it take so long to appear on this site sent on.06–04–02 time 15.10

Probably due to the server for Smartgroups running slow – it has happened before I'm afraid! _______________________________________________________

Established 10th March 2001
Visit the 'Farm-talking' web site at:
 <A HREF="http://www.farmtalking.com">FARMTALKING.org</A>
For Information, Help and Advice, Your Legal Rights and the Law
For Farmers, their families and others affected by the FMD crisis in the U.K. Find out all you need to know about life in the Countryside today
What's on! -Links – Articles – News – Message Board!
"Farmtalking"
Scottish Charity No: SCO32660
Help-lines: 01361–850282/850680
"You're welcome!"