***********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: Wed 15 Sep 2010
Source: Defra press release [edited]
Proposals for additional measures to help control bovine tuberculosis
in cattle were published for public consultation today [15 Sep 2010]
by Agriculture Minister Jim Paice.
Defra is consulting on a proposal to issue licences to farmers and
landowners who wish to cull and/or vaccinate badgers at their own
expense. These licences would be subject to strict licence criteria
to ensure badger control is done effectively, humanely and with high
regard for animal welfare.
Jim Paice said: "Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on many
farm businesses and families, especially in the West and South West
of England. Last year [2009], 25 000 cattle were slaughtered because
of the disease, and it cost the taxpayer over GBP 63 million [USD
98.4 million] in England alone."
"We can't go on like this. It's clear that the current approach has
failed to stop the spread of this terrible disease. We need to take
urgent action to halt its spread. No single measure will be enough to
tackle the disease on its own. But the science is clear: there is no
doubt that badgers are a significant reservoir for the disease, and
without taking action to control the disease in them, it will
continue to spread. No country in the world has eradicated bovine TB
without dealing with the reservoir in wildlife. That's why I'm today
[15 Sep 2010] launching a consultation on how we can tackle the
disease in badgers. A decision on our approach will be taken
following the consultation. I intend to publish a comprehensive and
balanced bovine TB eradication programme early in 2011."
The consultation proposes issuing licences under the Protection of
Badgers Act 1992 to enable farmers and landowners to cull badgers, at
their own expense. Under the government's new proposal, they will be
able to use vaccination either on its own or in combination with
culling. Licences would be subject to strict criteria to ensure
culling is carried out effectively, humanely and with high regard to
animal welfare. They will also be asked to explain how they intend to
minimise the negative effect in the surrounding area identified by
the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Farmers and landowners
are already able to apply for licences to vaccinate badgers.
Culling will only be allowed in areas where there is a high incidence
of bovine TB in cattle.
Jim Paice added: "I have looked carefully at the potential for using
badger vaccination. Based on veterinary advice and the available
scientific evidence, the government's assessment is that vaccination
on its own will not reduce disease as quickly as culling. However, by
using it in combination with culling, it is possible to maximise the
effectiveness of badger control in reducing bovine TB in cattle."
"Cattle measures will remain central to the government's bovine TB
programme, though some changes are planned to ensure that they are
better targeted on the basis of disease risk. Most existing cattle
measures will remain firmly in place; in some cases, controls will be
tightened where we know there is a higher disease risk, and in some
cases, burdens on farmers will be reduced, but only where we are
confident that this will not increase disease risk." Jim Paice
confirmed that pre-movement testing will remain in place following a
review and announced some minor changes to TB testing that will take
effect immediately.
Further details can be found via
Notes
1. The consultation closes on 8 Dec 2010 and can be found at
2. Badger culling has the potential to reduce bovine TB in cattle by
rapidly reducing the overall number of infected badgers, thus
reducing the rate of transmission of the disease to cattle. The main
body of evidence on the impact badger culling has on incidence of
bovine TB in cattle is the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT),
which took place between 1998 and 2007. The results of this major
government-funded trial demonstrate that badger culling, done on a
sufficient scale, in a widespread, coordinated and efficient way, and
over a sustained period of time, would reduce the incidence of bovine
TB in cattle in high incidence areas. No other country in the world
with a similar reservoir of bovine TB in wildlife has eradicated TB
from cattle without stringent wildlife control measures.
3. The RBCT showed that incidence of TB in cattle on land immediately
surrounding the culling area increased initially. Over the course of
the trial, this negative effect tailed off, and the latest RBCT
analysis shows that the level of TB in cattle in the surrounding area
is comparable with the un-culled survey-only areas. However, measures
can be put in place to mitigate the negative effects seen in the
surrounding area, such as setting a required minimum area over which
culling must take place and making use of barriers such as coastlines
and major rivers, to limit badger movement. Also badgers in the
surrounding area could be vaccinated.
4. Badger control licences would be subject to strict criteria to
ensure that measures are carried out effectively, humanely, and with
high regard to animal welfare. This will include a requirement that
any culling must take place over a minimum area of 150 sq/km so we
can be confident it will have a net beneficial effect. This means
that we would expect to receive licence applications from groups of
farmers and landowners rather than individuals. Applicants will also
need to demonstrate that they have considered taking further steps to
minimise the potential detrimental effect at the edge of a culling
area.
5. Licences will only permit culling by cage-trapping and shooting,
and by shooting free-running badgers, carried out by trained,
competent operators with appropriate firearms licences. Defra ruled
out gassing and snaring on the basis that we do not have sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that they are humane and effective methods of
culling.
6. The government will fund the cost of the licensing operation and
monitor the effects of the policy. We expect the farming industry to
bear the direct costs of badger control.
7. We will continue to look over the next few months at: Changes to
TB terminology; strengthening controls on high risk unconfirmed
breakdowns; extending the use of gamma interferon testing to all
confirmed breakdown herds in the 2-year testing areas; providing
better support for TB restricted farmers by enhancing their options
for selling surplus stock.
8. In 2009/10, controlling bovine TB cost the taxpayer GBP 63 million
[USD 98.4 million] in England. An additional GBP 8.9 million [USD
13.9 million] was spent on research.
--
Communicated by:
Sabine Zentis
Gut Laach
52385 Nideggen, Germany
******
[2]
Date: Wed 15 Sep 010
Source: Written Ministerial Statement [edited]
Bovine Tuberculosis, by the Minister of State for Agriculture and
Food (Jim Paice)
-----------------------------------------------
Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on many farm businesses and
families. The situation is steadily getting worse; the number of
animals slaughtered each year is unacceptable, and more farms are
affected as the disease spreads across the country. The area of
England affected by bovine TB has grown from isolated pockets in the
late 1980s to cover large areas of the West and South West of
England. 6.4 percent of herds in England were under bovine TB
restriction at the end of 2009. The figure was 14.3 percent in the
South West. In 2009, over 25 000 cattle were slaughtered due to TB in
England.
The cost to government of controlling bovine TB in England was over
GBP 63 million [USD 98.4] in 2009/10 (excluding scientific research).
These costs are rising year by year, and there is a strong case for
early effective action to turn this around. Furthermore, this has
been raised as a concern by others across Europe, and we are under
increasing pressure from the European Commission to strengthen our
controls.
Eradicating bovine TB is our long term goal, but it is clear that the
approach to date has failed. We need to take additional measures
urgently to stop the disease spreading and to start to reverse the
rising trend. The farming industry, veterinary profession and
government need to work in partnership to achieve this.
There is no single solution to tackling bovine TB; we need to use
every tool in the toolbox. Cattle measures will remain the foundation
of our bovine TB control programme, but we will not succeed in
eliminating the disease in cattle unless we also tackle the disease
in badgers. The science is clear; there is no doubt that badgers are
a reservoir of the disease and transmit bovine TB to cattle. No other
country in the world with a similar reservoir in wildlife has
eradicated TB from cattle without stringent wildlife control measures.
That is why the Coalition Government has committed, as part of a
package of measures, to develop affordable options for a
carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas
with high and persistent levels of bovine TB in cattle. I am today
[15 Sep 2010] launching a consultation on the government's proposed
approach to badger control in England.
Badger culling has the potential to reduce bovine TB in cattle by
rapidly reducing the overall number of infected badgers, thus
reducing the rate of transmission of the disease to cattle. The main
body of evidence on the impact badger culling has on incidence of
bovine TB in cattle is the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT)
which took place between 1998 and 2007. The results of this major
government-funded trial demonstrate that badger culling, done on a
sufficient scale, in a widespread, coordinated and efficient way, and
over a sustained period of time, would reduce the incidence of bovine
TB in cattle in high incidence areas. Analysis of the results
covering the whole period from the beginning of culling to July 2010
show that the beneficial effects of culling persist over this time
and that the initial detrimental effect seen at the edge of the
culled area had disappeared by 12-18 months after culling stopped.
The proposal on which I am launching the consultation today [15 Sep
2010] is to issue licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992
to enable farmers and landowners to cull badgers, at their own
expense. Under existing arrangements, farmers and landowners are
already able to apply for licences to vaccinate badgers. Under the
government's new proposal, they will be able to use vaccination
either on its own or in combination with culling. The government's
proposal will empower farmers to take control of reducing the risks
of transmission from the wildlife reservoir at the local level.
Licences would be subject to strict criteria to ensure that the
badger control measures are carried out effectively, humanely, and
with high regard to animal welfare. This will include a requirement
that any culling must take place over a minimum area of 150 square km
so we can be confident it will have a net beneficial effect. This
means that we would expect to receive licence applications from
groups of farmers and landowners rather than individuals. Applicants
will also need to demonstrate that they have considered taking
further steps to minimise the potential detrimental effect at the
edge of a culling area. Culling licences will only permit culling by
cage-trapping and shooting, and by shooting free-running badgers,
carried out by trained, competent operators with the appropriate
licences. We have ruled out gassing and snaring on the basis that we
do not currently have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they
are humane and effective methods of culling.
I have looked carefully at the potential for using badger
vaccination. Based on veterinary advice and the available scientific
evidence my assessment is that vaccination will not be as effective
as culling in quickly lowering the weight of infection in the badger
population. Vaccination does not guarantee that all badgers are fully
protected from infection, and it would take some time to develop
immunity within a local population. In addition, the fact that the
1st injectable badger vaccine was only licensed in March 2010 means
that there is only very limited experience of using vaccination in
the field and no hard evidence on the contribution badger vaccination
would make to reducing the disease in cattle. However, vaccination is
still likely to reduce disease risk and have greater disease control
benefits than taking no action to tackle bovine TB in badgers. In
addition, when used in combination with culling, vaccination could
help to mitigate the perturbation effects of cul!
ling.
The government's highest priority is to reduce the deficit, and it is
vital that any new policy is affordable. This is why we expect the
farming industry to bear the direct costs of badger control.
Government will fund the licensing operation and monitor the impacts
of the policy.
I do not approach these issues lightly. No one wants to kill badgers,
but the scientific evidence and veterinary advice clearly suggests
that this is the quickest and most effective way to bring down the
weight of infection in the badger population and in turn reduce the
rate of transmission of bovine TB to cattle. We also don't want to
see culling for longer than is necessary, and we intend to review how
the policy is working after 4 years.
I have met with the Badger Trust and separately with other interested
stakeholders to explain the evidence and rationale behind the
proposal. All have been offered the opportunity to discuss the
consultation in further detail with Defra.
The consultation is available on Defra's website
(
from today [15 Sep 2010] and will close on 8 Dec 2010. A decision on
this policy will be made early in 2011, taking account of views
provided during this consultation and the available scientific and
economic evidence.
The consultation document also highlights that we are planning a
number of changes to existing cattle measures to ensure that they are
better targeted on the basis of disease risk. Most existing cattle
measures will remain firmly in place; in some cases, we will be
looking to tighten controls where we know there is a higher disease
risk; and in some cases we will be looking to reduce burdens on
farmers, but only where we are confident that this will not increase
disease risk.
I am today [15 Sep 2010] publishing the report of a review of
pre-movement testing which is available on the Defra website
(
This has concluded that the current policy has been successful in
reducing bovine TB spread, provided a significant benefit for the
taxpayer and a net benefit for the farming industry. The pre-movement
testing policy will, therefore, remain in place, though we plan to
look again at the current exemptions to see whether they are still
necessary.
We will be making some minor changes to TB testing with immediate
effect. These include reducing the testing of new and reformed herds,
stopping the testing of young calves, rationalising post-breakdown
testing in low-risk herds where bovine TB is not confirmed and
rationalising the testing of herds neighbouring a confirmed TB
breakdown. These changes will reduce costs to the taxpayer and the
burden on farmers without increasing disease risk, and will ensure we
are not gold-plating EU legal requirements.
Over the next few months, I also intend to make changes to TB
terminology, strengthen controls on high risk unconfirmed breakdowns,
reduce the number of tracing tests and extend the use of gamma
interferon testing to all confirmed breakdown herds in the 2 yearly
testing areas. And I will ensure better support for TB restricted
cattle farmers by enhancing their options for selling surplus stock.
Further details of these changes will be announced in due course.
The Coalition Government is committed to dealing with this terrible
disease and reducing its burden on farmers and the taxpayer as
quickly as possible. A decision on our approach will be taken
following the consultation on badger control being launched today [15
Sep 2010]. I intend to publish a comprehensive and balanced bovine TB
eradication programme early in 2011.
--
Communicated by:
Sabine Zentis
Gut Laach
52385 Nideggen, Germany
******
[3]
Date: Wed 15 Sep 2010
Source: The Telegraph [edited]
Allowing farmers to cull badgers on their land was never going to be
a popular political decision, and it's no surprise that the new
government has made the move at this early stage of parliament: an
election is sufficiently far away that much of the popular disquiet
will have calmed down by then.
The outcry against badger culling is not based on the threat to the
species: there's no shortage of badgers in the United Kingdom. Recent
estimates have put the population at 250 000 adults, with around 172
000 cubs being born each spring. The anger is based instead on an
understandable concern for the individual animals rather than any
conservation-based risk to the species.
The plans have been made after a sharp rise in tuberculosis in
cattle, which is thought to be spread by badgers. But how big a
problem is bovine TB? Historically, the main issue has been the risk
to humans, not to animals. In the 1930's, 2500 people were dying
annually from the disease. Around 9000 people are currently infected
with TB every year in the UK, but most of these cases are now caused
by the human TB bug (_Mycobacterium tuberculosis_). The government
bovine TB control strategy has been highly effective, with less than
one per cent of all confirmed cases of TB in humans now due to
infection with _Mycobacterium bovis_ (Bovine TB). Yet the disease has
proven stubbornly difficult to eradicate completely from the national
herd, and in recent years, the incidence has been increasing.
There's been huge controversy over the role of badgers in the spread
of bovine TB (bTB), with successive studies producing apparently
contradictory results. Yes, badgers are definitely involved in
spreading the disease, but no, killing them does not always improve
the situation. If healthy badgers are killed in a TB-free area,
infected badgers may wander into the newly vacated niche, bringing TB
with them. Badger-lovers argue that this means that any culling of
badgers is not justified. Others reach a different conclusion: if
badger culling is carried out, it just needs to be planned carefully
so that it doesn't make things worse.
Over a year ago, the British Veterinary Association established a new
policy approving of the culling of badgers in specific circumstances,
based on their experts' best assessment of all the evidence
available. The BVA justified its decision with logical bullet points,
paraphrased as follows:
1. The continuing spread of bTB within cattle and wildlife has an
unacceptable impact on animal health and welfare and has the
potential for being a risk to public health.
2. Cost-effective control and eradication of bTB from cattle and
wildlife populations must be the ultimate aim. Further action must be
taken immediately to reverse the increasing prevalence of TB in
cattle.
3. Control measures in cattle must be accompanied by simultaneous and
coordinated measures in badgers and other wildlife and susceptible
farmed species.
4. In certain circumstances, targeted and managed badger culling is
necessary in carefully selected areas where badgers are regarded as a
significant contributor to the persistent presence of bTB. The
methods employed by this control must be humane.
The danger of today's headlines ("Farmers to get all clear to cull
badgers") is that an uncontrolled anti-badger pogrom may be
unleashed. Healthy badgers may be killed in areas without TB, leading
to the inwards migration of TB-carrying badgers from neighbouring
areas.
If the unsavoury task of killing badgers has to be done, it must only
be done in a calculated, careful way with close veterinary
supervision. And the results must be monitored, so that if, after
all, it is not effective, it must be stopped.
In the meantime, efforts need to continue to produce an effective
oral vaccine for badgers; once this is available, old Brock can
finally be left to live in peace.
[Byline: Pete Wedderburn]
--
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[Subscribers are referred to the 8 Apr 2009 Final Report of the
Bovine TB Advisory Group, presented to UK's Minister for Farming and
the Environment, and the chief veterinary officer for Defra,
available at
The conclusions (page 4) included the following point 8, with which
we fully concurred (see archived 20090707.2443):
"Given the current rate of spread of TB, we are concerned there may
be over-reliance on a future vaccination programme (cattle and
badgers); this should not negate the urgent need for measures to
tackle the problem now." - Mod.AS]
[see also:
Bovine tuberculosis - UK: (England), wild boar 20100522.1703
Bovine tuberculosis - UK: (England) sheep 20100319.0879
2009
----
Bovine tuberculosis, human - UK: (England) 20090808.2815
Bovine tuberculosis - UK (05): (England) alpaca 20090730.2667
Bovine tuberculosis - UK (04): badger vaccination 20090707.2443
Bovine tuberculosis - UK (03): increased incidence 20090514.1809
Bovine tuberculosis - UK, New Zealand: vaccination 20090325.1160
Bovine tuberculosis - UK (02): (Wales) 20090323.1143
Tuberculosis, bovine - UK: (02) 20090320.1121
Tuberculosis, bovine - UK: (Wales) 20090107.0066
2008
----
Bovine tuberculosis, feline - UK (02) 20081126.3722
Bovine tuberculosis - UK: increased incidence 20081123.3696
Bovine tuberculosis, domestic animals - UK (03): 2005-2006 20081114.3594
Bovine tuberculosis, domestic animals - UK (02) 20081112.3565
Bovine tuberculosis, domestic animals - UK 20081111.3551
Bovine tuberculosis, feline - UK 20081005.3141
Bovine tuberculosis, human, canine - UK: (England) (02) 20080927.3054
Bovine tuberculosis, human, canine - UK: (England) 20080903.2751
Bovine tuberculosis, caprine - UK: (Wales) 20080723.2229
Bovine tuberculosis - UK, Ireland, Netherlands ex UK 20080718.2186
2006
----
Bovine tuberculosis, human - UK (England) (02) 20061015.2967
Bovine tuberculosis, human - UK (England) 20061009.2896
2004
----
Bovine tuberculosis, human - UK (Gloucestershire) (02) 20040716.1930
Bovine tuberculosis, human - UK (Gloucestershire) 20040714.1890]
................................................arn/msp/lm
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Donate to ProMED-mail. Details available at:
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org (NOT to
an individual moderator). If you do not give your full name
name and affiliation, it may not be posted. You may unsub-
scribe at
For assistance from a human being, send mail to:
############################################################
############################################################
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment