[ZeusS]

2010 has been declared the International Year of Biodiversity. The Welsh Assembly Government is celebrating this by giving the go ahead for the extermination of as many badgers as possible in an area around Pembrokeshire in an effort to eradicate the infamous bovine TB. Is the badger being used as a scapegoat? Removing this much loved mammal from large areas of the countryside is not even likely to be a quick fix or sustainable solution for farmers. The scientific evidence is against this cull and the high costs would suggest it is not value for money. Thousands of mainly healthy badgers have already been killed in research and culls. The scientific evidence and public opinion appear to be against a mass cull. Over the last decade or so badgers seem to have occupied a disproportionate amount of time and resources at the expense of a more sustainable, lasting solution. We should be aware that badgers are not the only species that can get bTB. An unpopular cull, which is not properly backed up by reliable scientific evidence, is bad publicity for farmers and may even have serious implications for tourism and food industries if an angry public decide on boycotts. Surely the draconian powers of entry needed for the mass culling is a serious infringement of basic human rights and civil liberties, thereby creating a dangerous precedent?

Despite a compulsory testing regime for some fifty years, we are told bTB is now endemic in many areas of the UK. However, this is based solely on the results of a skin test for cattle that has not really changed since it was originally developed and that many now believe may not be as reliable as is claimed. For example, just how accurate and up to date is the scientific data behind the claims of its sensitivity and positive productive values and why is this information not available to cattle owners on request? A high percentage of cattle slaughtered have no evidence of disease and whilst reasons are given for this, they seem weak and open to challenge - many farmers are not happy with the explanations given when they see what look like perfectly cattle destroyed. How many of those cattle slaughtered as reactors and inconclusive reactors would have gone on to live a healthy life? The skin test indicates that an animal has mounted an immune response capable of recognising M bovis and does not conclude actual infection. This means that those cattle, which test as reactors or inconclusive reactors, are likely to have been exposed to M bovis bacteria at some point in their lives (or been vaccinated!) and it is not actually known how many of these are infectious or would go on to get clinical symptoms, yet they are hastened to their deaths at the taxpayers’ expense. It is interesting to note that despite the claims that the disease is now out of control, few people ever contract the disease - even farmers, testers, vets, abattoir workers etc who are in regular and close contact of supposedly infected animals - and many farming families drink their own milk raw, before it is pasteurized. In fact it is generally accepted that nowadays bTB poses negligible risk to human health and clinical signs are still rarely seen in cattle.
The existing policy is all about maintaining TB free status and protecting exports. It is concerned mainly with meeting targets and deadlines, not protecting human or animal health and welfare. Whilst the government ministers and bureaucrats are busy claiming how successful the TB Health Check Wales has been, the very significant costs for those adversely affected, have been largely ignored. They do not take into account the intolerable burden for many farming families, particularly those that experience herd breakdowns, the constant testing (a very time consuming process for which the farmer is not reimbursed), the severe stress of the whole process, the emotional loss of cattle and welfare issues involved, the businesses that suffer, the financial consequences of being on stop for long periods of time, the increased health and safety implications from increased cattle handling, the inflexible bureaucracy and the need for expensive equipment. It would probably not be tolerated in any other sector but most farmers are held to ransom because of fear of financial penalties. Are there now too many vested interest groups keen to see the existing system continue for as long as possibleIt will be the continued intolerable bureaucracy and constant skin testing that kills off the dairy industry, not disease.

The bacterium that causes bTB is endemic in the environment so is it realistic to expect that the disease will ever be completely eradicated? The human form of Tb has been controlled adequately for decades, so why, after so many years and millions of taxpayers’ money already spent, is there still no vaccination programme agreed for bTB? As the two diseases are so closely linked surely the efficacy of such a programme would be similar to the claims made for the existing, unreliable and very time consuming skin test system? Surely the best way forward is for a vaccination programme for cattle to start without further delay and for farmers and unions to be campaigning strongly for this and the necessary change in EU legislation to facilitate? Interestingly the human form of TB is actually on the increase in the UK, brought by people coming in from infected areas abroad. Despite this the previous national vaccination programme has been discontinued for most children. This has received far less attention than bTB.