www.vetrecord.co.uk/vrcurrent.htm
The Vet Record
COMMENT 12th January
2002
Developing policy on FMD
Although press reports of
last month's EU conference on foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) have tended
to focus on the potential
use of vaccination in helping
to control future outbreaks, the issues considered went much further than
that. The conference,
held in Brussels from December
12 to 13, was organised by the Belgian EU presidency, the European Commission,
the
Netherlands and the UK,
and attended by representatives of the 15 EU member states, countries outside
the EU and relevant
international organisations.
Ministers and senior politicians from national parliaments and the European
Parliament attended,
along with scientists and
representatives of the agricultural sector, animal welfare organisations
and consumer groups. The aim was to consider the whole question of the
prevention and control of FMD in the light of the experiences of last year's
outbreaks, and the conclusions
of the conference reflect this, covering issues such as disease management
and prevention, the influence of EU animal husbandry structures and the
role of vaccination, along with animal welfare and the socioeconomic
consequences of the disease
for farmers, the food industry, consumers and society.
The text of some of the presentations
given at the meeting can be viewed on the Internet at
<http://www.cmlag.fgov.be/eng/conference.html>
and the conclusions and recommendations have been summarised in a document
that is being considered by the EU's Agriculture Council. Mr David Byrne,
the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, said that the Commission
intended to introduce a proposal for a new directive early this year and
would be looking for a new agreement on how to deal with FMD internationally
by 2003.
It was overwhelmingly the
view of the conference that there should not be a repeat of last year's
outbreaks and that alternative
approaches to tackling the
disease must be found. However, it was felt that there was unlikely to
be any single answer to
dealing with FMD. Rather,
there was a need to apply a combination of measures, and to introduce more
flexibility in the EU
rules on controlling the
disease and coping with its consequences. This would depend on the development
of high quality
vaccines and validated diagnostic
tests, particularly tests capable of differentiating between vaccinated
and infected animals. It would also depend on convincing consumers that
meat from vaccinated animals was safe to eat and introducing more flexibility
into international trade rules, so that following control of an outbreak
by vaccination, exports of animals known not to be infected could resume
more quickly than is currently the case. As far as the last of these was
concerned, it was argued that development of suitably validated diagnostic
tests might offer scope for manoeuvre, though it remains to be seen whether
this indeed proves to be the case.
The conference was firmly
of the view that countries should continue to strive to maintain their
FMD-free status and was
opposed to the idea of prophylactic
vaccination throughout the EU. Nevertheless, it was felt that the Community
needed to be
able to respond rapidly
and flexibly to any future outbreaks, with appropriate responses depending
on the particular
circumstances. This might
include emergency vaccination in addition to compulsory stamping out of
at least the infected herds, coupled with a system of regionalisation and
strict controls on animal movements. However, the use of emergency vaccination
had to be assessed in the context of international trade rules and the
attitudes of consumers to meat from vaccinated animals; the importance
of this was amply demonstrated by the experiences of the Netherlands during
the 2001 outbreak, where emergency vaccination was used but the vaccinated
animals had to be slaughtered and destroyed anyway, because there was no
market for them. The public outrage at the destruction of vaccinated animals
in the Netherlands was, if anything, even greater than the outrage at the
slaughter of animals in the UK, highlighting the need for alternative approaches
to be found. The conference emphasised the need for validation, registration
and international recognition of reliable, discriminatory tests. It also
called for better communication with the public about animal diseases and
their consequences and the pros and cons of different methods of control.
As well as discussing options
for controlling an outbreak, the congress placed equal, if not greater
emphasis on preventing
FMD through controls on
imports, including personal imports; measures aimed at reducing the spread
of disease between
holdings; and improved biosecurity
on individual holdings. It highlighted the need to ensure that mechanisms
and resources are available in order to detect and respond rapidly to an
emergency or suspicion of the disease, and called for a strengthening of
veterinary services to ensure that they are in a position to respond appropriately.
The conference also considered
wider international elements of FMD control, suggesting there was more
scope for the EU to
assist and cooperate with
developing countries where the disease is endemic. The point was made that
large-scale destruction of animals was viewed with alarm in countries having
to live with the disease where food is in short supply.
Following the traumas of
last year, the conference clearly demonstrated a will among the participants,
and the EC itself, to
strengthen existing control
measures and develop alternative approaches to tackling FMD. The challenge
now is to convert that will into action.
****** |