| Read and comment on the discussion document by the new RethinkbTB group |  |
|
|
 |
|
|
We are interested in learning more about the parallels that may be drawn to the human form of TB (bearing in mind that the bovine form accounts for less than 0.5% of human TB cases in the UK) as this may indicate the true risks of bovine TB – which may be far less than the current policy implies. Humans are tested using one of the existing skin tests (eg the Heaf or Mantoux test) which is very similar to the skin test used for cattle.
Up until a few years ago there was a regular testing and vaccination programme for teenagers but this is no longer done routinely, although testing is still available privately and for high-risk people. It must be noted that all skin tests are only capable of attempting to determine whether or not there has been any exposure to the Mycobacteria that cause TB. As with the cattle test, in humans tuberculin is injected into the skin and the results are read 48 - 72 hours later, by measuring any indurations. If there is no swelling or it is under a certain depth the person is vaccinated. Over the stipulated measurement and the person is classed as a reactor and not vaccinated. If there are any clinical symptoms (very rare) further medical investigation and treatment, if applicable, is initiated.
Interestingly, human cases 'reactors' are not culled as cattle are and these people continue to live among us as there is presumably so little risk of them spreading TB. Very few go on to develop the disease. So one would assume the same would apply to cattle?
However, with cattle ALL reactors are assumed to be infected or potentially infectious, so are slaughtered 'just in case'.
We need to justify why we kill so many cattle just because they are deemed to be 'reactors'? Most milk is pasteurised and meat is cooked - heat destroys any mycobacteria, so risk to human health is very minimal.
For more information on this subject see http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=106. It does seem we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut with the policy that has become increasingly rigid and increasingly fails. It seems clear to me that the existing regime has got to a point where the policy is worse than the disease itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Campaigning for the right to vaccinate cattle against TB |
|
|
|
Bovine TB is a very low health risk |
|
|
The Food Standards Agency says 'there had not been a single documented case of someone developing human TB after eating infected meat.' In fact, so low is the risk that they go on to say 'Where a carcass shows evidence of localised TB, the lesions are cut out and the rest of the carcass is passed as fit for human consumption.' July 2009
|
|
20 Mar 2010, 6:59 PM
Is the costly and controversial existing bTB policy really about protecting human health and, if not, is there an alternative way forward? These are the main questions that politicians and those involved with policy making should be asking, particularly in this current era of financial crisis as public expenditure in the UK on bTB control continues to escalate read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IS THE EXISTING BOVINE TB ERADICATION POLICY REALLY WORKING? |
|
|
Is the existing costly and disruptive programme that aims to eradicate bTB in the UK good value for money and is it really working? Is the existing policy now having more of an adverse impact on human and cattle welfare than the risks from the disease it is aiming to control/eradicate? Would it be more sensible instead to have a control policy, rather than one that aims for the impossible - eradication? It is clear that after 60 years of using the same old test (which is not reliable enough to be anything other than a herd test), culling thousands of cattle, and millions of pounds of public expenditure spent on compensation payments, research etc, the existing eradication (elimination!) policy is impossible to achieve and sustain whilst the bacteria that causes bovine TB is so endemic around the world and globalisation continues to increase. As this website clearly reveals, the current insistence on striving for eradication is undoubtedly causing more suffering to farmers and their animals than the risks of the actual disease itself. The Government persistently fails to adequately justify the need for such an expensive and draconian policy, either on the grounds of human or animal health or even on economic grounds.
Since the 1950's, when the testing of cattle for bovine TB (bTB) in the UK became compulsory following its initial introduction on a voluntary basis in the 1930's, many millions of pounds have been spent on trying to eradicate the disease using a skin test. However, despite well over 50 years of testing and all this spending, and many thousands of slaughtered cattle, little progress has been made, and the financial costs continue to escalate year on year. Perhaps more importantly, the government has done little to determine the true costs of the existing testing policy; the consequences of the enormous pressures on cattle owners; business failures as a result of herd breakdowns, health and safety risks from cattle handling and the actual consequences of culling indigenous wildlife species ... the existing policy is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is starting too to involve an even greater number of people and animals as legislation is being brought in to test/cull wildlife and other domestic animals.
Are too many people now being adversely affected by the current policy? With the recent decision by WAG to bring in compulsory testing for other domestic animals, an even greater number of people will be affected. It would seem that the main reason for trying to eradicate bTB is so the UK can maintain its 'TB free status', thereby protecting the agricultural industry's dwindling cattle exports. Is it now time for a radical re-think? Bovine TB appears to be yet another area that has become 'big business'. Is it now being driven by vested interests?
The current pre-occupation with bTB may sound particularly surprising when you consider that the risk to humans these days from bovine TB is negligible - pasteurisation and cooking destroys any TB bacteria in milk and meat. In fact the risk to humans is so minimal that even the unaffected parts of carcasses of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors and found to have TB lesions are sold back into the food chain for human consumption.
Those countries which claim to have eradicated bovine TB using the skin test have achieved this by using very stringent measures, such as complete depopulation of herds, delays on re-stocking and even the removal and sterilization of soil! It is interesting to note that no country with so called wildlife reservoirs, has been able to achieve this coveted status to date.
Despite the massive costs over the last few decades, the exact details of the transmission and epidemiology of bovine TB are still not known with complete certainty and there are a number of important, unanswered questions which are fundamental in justifying the existing test and cull policy. Have we got to the stage when the huge costs and negative effects on cattle owners as a result of the existing policy outweigh any perceived benefits of the existing policy and should there be a radical re-think on the whole issue? Perhaps lessons can be learned from countries such as Ethiopia, where they just cannot afford to persistently test and kill cattle needlessly. Neither can they afford to spend millions of pounds on investigating so-called wildlife reservoirs. Instead, they are opting for control and are trialling vaccination of cattle. The results are encouraging, as have been previous cattle vaccination trials in other areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We aim to:
- Question whether the existing policy really is the most appropriate way forward.
- Explore other options.
- Highlight the problems and indirect consequences of the existing policy.
- Provide an open, easy to us forum to encourage debate on all the issues involved.
- Provide case studies that reveal the negative consequences of the existing eradication programme for those involved and flaws of the existing tests.
We are also campaigning for the right to vaccinate cattle against bovine TB as soon as the vaccination becomes available (DEFRA has predicted this will be 2012).
There are many websites that discuss bovine TB but most of these are dominated by the cattle/badger link. On this site we aim to include the other issues involved, many of which are just as important yet have received little attention to date. We believe that the existing TB policy and testing system is not sustainable, is too costly and is creating more problems than the disease it is supposed to be controlling/eradicating. We are concerned too that it is now more about achieving political targets and meeting deadlines than safeguarding animal and human health. There are many fundamental questions that we consider are not being considered or properly addressed. We have strived to provide accurate information, which is fully referenced. However, if you consider any of the information given is misleading or not accurate please contact us with full details (email address is in the 'About Us' section) or use the open forum. The site is updated regularly. Please note that some of the DEFRA references may prove difficult to access as pages have been withdrawn. DEFRA explains that it is creating a new website reflecting the latest government policies and priorities, so presumably pages are being selectively removed if they are not in line with current Coalition Government's thinking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 Sep 2009, 3:20 PM
Is the current, rigid implementation of the bovine TB policy by DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly well grounded or is it mainly based on scaremongering by vested interest groups and the meeting of targets by bureaucrats? Time and time again it has been proven that politicians and decision makers in both the public and private sector do not always get it right, and in some cases even provide inaccurate information and attempt to mislead, often as a result of pressures from influential, vested interest groups. Can we therefore trust the policy makers, consultants and alleged ‚'experts'‚ in this instance? There is plenty of evidence that reveals we probably should not. History tells us that when it comes to health issues, there are always knee jerk reactions by politicians, often fueled by vested pharmaceutical interests. read more...
|
|
26 Sep 2009, 7:42 PM
Bacteria which causes TB is always in the environment and all animals are susceptible – not just cattle and, so it is highly unlikely it will ever be eradicated. The TB policy and the nightmare of testing is becoming increasingly difficult for those who keep cattle therefore vaccination would seem to be the most logical course of action. read more...
|
|
18 Oct 2009, 6:52 PM
How reliable and workable is the existing intradermal tuberculin (skin) test (currently the only approved test under EU regulations)? The current skin test has been used for over 50 years. read more...
|
|
20 Oct 2009, 7:56 PM
The government's primary objectives (Ref. 1), which form the basis of the existing bovine TB (bTB) control/eradication policy, are:
1. To protect public health
2. To prevent bovine TB spreading to other animals
3. To make sure that cattle do not suffer because of bTB
There are many fundamental questions associated with each, plus related questions, as set out below. If these cannot be adequately answered then the policy is suspect and a radical re-think is needed.
read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFRA's report, 'Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis', by the Veterinary Team bTB Programme, Food and Farming Group (last updated 12 July 2007), said that cattle vaccination has potential benefits to reduce prevalence, incidence and spread of bTB in the cattle population. The BCG (Bacille Calmette-Guerin, the human TB vaccine) was suggested as the lead vaccine candidate in the short to medium term.
DEFRA has now revealed, in the latest consultation document, Bovine Tuberculosis: the Government's approach to tackling the disease and consultation on a badger control policy' (September 2010, para 62), that a vaccination (BCG) for cattle will be licensed in 2012 (with the DIVA test). Professor Glyn Hewinson of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency at Weybridge also confirmed this during the BBC's On the Farm broadcast on 19th December 2010. The BCG vaccine will not give 100% protection (estimates range from 50 -70%) and is not perfect – but then neither is the existing skin (or blood) test (estimates range from 70%). Vaccination does not give absolute immunity but it significantly increases natural resistance to the disease. Bearing in mind the average lifespan of cattle, it could therefore be used as the basis for a successful control, rather than eradication, policy. It will be easier for farmers and cheaper in the long term too as cattle would no longer have to be slaughtered needlessly (with subsequent compensation costs) just because they are reactors or unconfirmed reactors to an unreliable skin or blood test.
However, the stumbling block is now the EU procedures, which, we are told, will not be completed until 2015! This is not good enough and derogation should be sought NOW so a vaccination programme can be started for cattle as a matter of urgency.
Vaccination has been successful in trials in Ethiopia where the BCG vaccination can still be used. Countries like Ethiopia insist they cannot afford to keep culling cattle needlessly - can we here in the UK? Interestingly, the BCG vaccination was only made illegal here in the 50's when the skin test became compulsory. This was because vaccinated cattle showed up as reactors to the test.
If cattle are vaccinated there may then be no need to tackle wildlife reservoirs, thereby saving these costs too. In these times of severe financial restraint and public cuts affecting so many people, the onus is on our politicians to choose affordable options. The Government has persistently failed to adequately justify the need for the existing expensive, archaic and draconian bovine TB policy, either on the grounds of human or animal health or even on economic grounds. Change is needed - and now! read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health Check Wales is a zero tolerance policy aimed at TB testing all cattle in Wales. It was introduced on October 2008 and originally scheduled to end December 2009 but it has been extended. The campaign is costing some £27.7 million (Gwlad, Bovine TB Special Edition Summer 2010). With the increased testing an increasing number of positive and inconclusive animals have been identified and slaughtered since the programme began. The costs continue to escalate, as does the hardship to cattle owners suffering continuous testing and herd breakdowns. Interestingly, the minutes of a meeting held on 20th February 2008 between the Minister for Rural Affairs and Professor John Bourne, Department for Rural Affairs, Cardiff reveal that scientists advised the Minister that: '... the Welsh Assembly Government should learn to live with the disease in endemic areas in the foreseeable future, while applying proportionate measures to reduce cattle disease incidence, which would allow continued farming activity'. With the ongoing costs of the test and slaughter policy, monitoring and all other associated costs, the cost of the existing programme cannot be sustainable, particularly at a time when there is financial crisis and major cuts in other areas. As it is the results of the skin test that are used to determine whether or not bTB is endemic in an area, is the existing test reliable enough and where is the scientific evidence and trials that back up its efficacy? How up to date are any trials? Have other issues been taken into account, such as the variance in individual animals regarding immunity and disease tolerance, climate change and other factors that can compromise the immune system?
Whilst the ministers and bureaucrats are proclaiming the success of Health Check Wales (undertaken mainly in 2009 but now continuing into 2010), they have totally ignored the hardships caused to many farmers as a consequence of the policy. In order to achieve their targets and deadlines they have put sustained and continued pressure on cattle owners, regardless of other circumstances. They have had little regard to the real health, safety, welfare or cost implications for cattle owners or their animals, despite such risks being clearly portrayed in WAG's DVD 'Eradicating Bovine TB', published in 2010. And what about the risks associated with re-stocking after a herd breakdown? With the current emphasis on removing disease sources as quickly as possible it seems surprising that immediate restocking is allowed, particularly as it is known that the bacteria that causes TB can remain active for many months.
In the WAG's regular magazine 'Gwlad' (March 2010 issue) there was an article about the problems farmers face when re-stocking after bTB. In addition to the risk to the new cattle of picking up TB from the existing stock, it would seem that animals bought in can be more susceptible to other diseases too and this can lower fertility and production - causing yet more problems for farmers. The case they referred to was a dairy farm which had firstly re-stocked quickly with local animals that some time later tested positive (despite being clear at the pre-movement tests) and had to be destroyed so they went to 'clean' areas and then had problems with BVD and IBR, which they had never had before. They had to vaccinate - which was expensive and fertility dropped off drastically.
WAG's Tuberculosis (Wales) Order 2010 came into force on 25/5/10. The aim is to strengthen even further the measures WAG can take to achieve its aim of eradicating bovine TB in Wales. It now has the power to slaughter untested animals, ie animals that are difficult to handle, and to treat them as if they have TB (thereby further distorting the figures!). It also gives it the power to reduce compensation payments to reflect any poor practice and non-compliance with the bTB testing requirements. The order also introduces Veterinary Improvement Notices which will be used where continuing bad practice or lack of action by a cattle keeper may be having an impact on the level or duration of TB infection on a holding. Are we going to see many more farmers being forced out of business? It would seem to be the smaller farms that are disappearing; farms that may well be vital for the future (providing good, locally produced food and habitat diversity options), as climate change becomes a reality and we cannot be so reliant on food from abroad.
It is estimated that 60% of the human population live in countries where cattle undergo no control or
only limited control for bovine TB. (Ref. 1), so is it realistic to expect we can ever really eradicate (eliminate) bTB as a disease in UK cattle (or other animals)? Even in areas classed as 'TB free', where it is supposedly 'eradicated', the disease crops up from time to time. The following is an extract from the 2nd edition (1906) 'Mycobacteriul bovis Infection in Humans and Animals', by CO Thoen, James H Styeele and MJ Gilsdorf; 'In view of the large number of susceptible species, the differences in pathogenesis and the variety of possible transmission mechanisms, combined with the lack of effective vaccination and moderately accurate diagnostic methods, bovine TB can be difficult to control', let alone eradicate'!
Ref. 1 'Zoonotic tuberculosis due to Mycobacterium bovis in developing countries' by O.Coivi et al, 1998.
|
|
|
|
|
