Bovine TB Time for a Rethink

‘Chronic and debilitating’ ‘Wrecking families’

‘Putting people out of business’ ‘Destroying livelihoods’

- the DISEASE or the POLICY?

2nd edition

Rethink Bovine TB is an independent research group funded by people with an inter-est in examining public policy as it affects agriculture, animal diseases, animal welfare

and the financial viability of farming.

Rethink Bovine TB gratefully acknowledges original research and evidence offered by academic and industry experts and information and data provided by the Department

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

We hope that this report will serve to stimulate discussion and bring Bovine TB policy, essentially unchanged for many decades, rapidly into the twenty first century. We

look forward to and welcome comments and criticism from all who read it.

Please contact Michael Ritchie, Press Officer, on 0207 993 5404 or email: farming@rethinkbtb.org with your comments and feedback.

For more information visit www.rethinkbtb.org

Main contributors:Michael Ritchie

Sally HallMichael Griffiths

Yvette BrownLinda Griffiths

Rethink Bovine TB would like to thank the large number of people who have provided

information or contributed comments and suggestions, which have been used in this second edition.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Summary

3. WhatisBovineTB?

4. CurrentBovineTBpolicyobjectives

5. Howthecurrentpolicyisdelivered

6. Why‘testandcull’isnotworking

7. Rethink:theremustbeabetterway

8. Conclusion

9. Referencesandfurtherinformation

Second edition published July 2011

With thanks to Lawrence Wright for cover photo

Great care has been taken to ensure accuracy of content based on the information available but the authors do not accept responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions.

Page 3

1. IntroductionInthisdiscussionpaperweconsidercurrentBovineTBpolicyinEnglandandWales,andproposealternativesthatwebelievetobebothpracticalandcosteffective.

Wehavedrawnourevidencefromavarietyofsources,butinparticularfromDefra(theDepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs)andfromearlierworkbyProfessorPaulTorgerson18andProfessorDavidTorgerson19.

Wherenumericalorstatisticalargumentsarenecessarytoshowwhatisactuallyhappeningonfarms,wehaveexplainedtheargumentasclearlyaspossible.Wehavealsoexplainedthatsomewidelyheldviewsaresupportedonlybystatisticalcorrelation(opentomanyalternativeexplanations),ratherthananyevidenceofaphysicallinkbetweeneffectandpresumedcause.

2. Summary 2.1 HumanHealthIntheUK,humaninfectionwiththebacteriumresponsibleforBovineTB,Mycobacteriumbovis,isalmostnon-existent,principallybecauseofpasteurisationofmilkandcookingofmeat.Mostofthefewcaseswerecontractedabroadorbeforepasteurisationofmilk.2.2 AnimalHealthInfectedcattlehavelittleprobabilityofdevelopingthediseaseandseldomshowsymptomsduringtheir(oftenshort)economiclives.Theprincipalanimalwelfareimplicationisnotthediseasebutprematureslaughterunderthecurrent‘testandcull’policy.Theeffectofthepolicyisworsethanthedisease.2.3 CurrentPolicyDefra’sstatedreasonsforthecurrentpolicy,principallyprotectionofhumanhealth,exportsandanimalwelfare,donotstandexamination.ThepolicyreliesonaflaweddiagnostictestthatevenDefradescribesas‘imperfect’11.Itleavespotentiallyinfectedanimalsintheherd,andfalselycondemnslargenumbersofhealthyanimals.Thepolicyiscausingwidespreadlossesanddistresstofarmers,andisaburdenonthetaxpayer.After60yearsofcattletestingandculling,furtherdecadesofcompulsoryslaughterseparateusfromanuncertainchanceofTBfreestatus.Defraadmitsthepolicyisfailingandthatthereasonsarenotknown.2.4 TheSolutionAccordingtoDefracattlevaccinationwillbelicensednextyear(2012).OnlytheEUpreventsusfromusingvaccinationandfromallowingfarmersthefreedomtochoosethemostsuitablemeansofBovineTBcontrolfortheircircumstances.

Page 4

Whateveraspectisconsidered-farmingprofit,costeffectivenessforthetaxpayer,animalwelfare,humanhealth,conservationorfoodsecurity-thecurrentpolicyisaresoundingfailure.

Thisdiscussiondocumentproposessolutions.

3. What is Bovine TB?BovineTBiscausedbythebacteriumMycobacteriumbovis(M.bovis).Itisdifficulttodiagnose,particularlyintheearlystages.Theveryrareclinicalsignsmayincludeemaciation,lethargy,weakness,anorexia,low-gradefever,pneumoniawithachronicmoistcough,lymphnodeenlargementandvisibleormicroscopiclesionsininfectedorgans.

AnymammalcancontractBovineTB,butsurprisinglylittleisknownabouthowitisspread,whatmakesanimalssusceptibletoitandhowitdevelopsinthehostanimal.

ItisveryunusualforhumanstocatchBovineTBintheUK.In2009,forexample,itaccountedforonly0.5%orabout45ofthe9,040humancasesofTBintheUK1.MostcasesofTBinhumansarecausedbyadifferentbacterium,Mycobacteriumtuberculosis.

VirtuallyallthefewhumancasesofBovineTBareeitherinolderpeoplewhohavereactivatedoldlesionsacquiredbeforewidespreadpasteurisationofmilk,orinpeoplewhowereinfectedoverseas.ThustransmissiontohumansactuallytakingplaceintheUKisnegligible2.

ThetestusedforTBinhumansissimilarinmechanismandfunctiontotheskintestusedoncattle.Interestinglyhumanswhoreacttoitareclassedasimmuneunlesssignsofdiseasecanbedetected,whereascattleareclassedasreactorsandslaughtered,whethersymptomsexistornot.

Inthecaseofcattle,mostauthoritiesonthesubject(includingDefra)believethatBovineTBismostlikelytoenterpreviouslyuninfectedareasasaresultofcattlemovement,andthenprimarilyspreadbetweencattleinrespiratorysecretions3.

ThereissomeevidenceofastatisticallinkbetweentheprevalenceofBovineTBinfectionincattleandinbadgersbutnodirectionormeansoftransmissionhasbeenestablishedwithanycertainty4.Possibleexplanationsforthestatisticalcorrelationincludecrossinfectionbetweenthespecies(eithercattletobadgerorbadgertocattle)oralocallyoccurringcommonriskfactor,causingbothspeciestobeindependentlysusceptible.Thematterislikelytoremainshroudedinuncertaintyandcontroversy.Evenlessisknownaboutwhetherotherdomesticandwildmammalspeciesareimplicatedincattleinfection.

Eveninareaswhereitisrife,mostwildanddomesticanimalsfightoffthedisease.Thisisthenaturalandcorrect

Transmission to humans is virtually zero

Page 5

responseoftheimmunesystem.Afewanimalsmaysuccumbtoinfectionanddevelopsymptoms(i.e.become‘ill’).

The economic lifespan of cattle varies but, with the exception of breeding stock, tends to be relatively short. Following initial challenge by M. bovis bacteria, infection may be held in a dormant state by the immune system for many years or indefinitely. Hence the fact an animal is a ‘reactor’ does not mean it will go on to develop the symptoms of having the disease Bovine TB, be infectious, or become ill. It may simply have immunity.

4. Reasons for current Bovine TB policyEverypolicyandactionofgovernmentmusthaveareason.Defraoffersdiversereasonsinitspublications5,6,7,theonlyconsistencybeingthattheyaresignificantlydifferentineverydocument.Theyattempttojustifymanyofthesereasonswithcircular,self-fulfillingarguments.WewillconsidertheversioninDefra’s‘BovineTuberculosisEvidencePlan2011/12’6.

‘Protectthehealthofthepublicandmaintainpublicconfidenceinthesafetyofproductsenteringthefoodchain.’

Thisseemsapowerfulandcompellingargumentuntiltheevidenceisconsidered.DefraandtheHealthProtectionAgencyadmitthattheriskofhumanscatchingBovineTBfrommeatisnegligible.SonegligiblethatpotentiallyinfectedcattleslaughteredafterfailingaTBtest,andcattlefoundatabattoirstobeinfected,aresoldforhumanconsumption(withanyTBlesions,whichhappentobevisible,removed).

DefraandtheHealthProtectionAgencyadmitpasteurisationofmilkkillsM.bovisbacteria,removinganydangerofinfection.RawmilkisonlysoldfromTBfreeherds.

‘Protectandpromotethehealthandwelfareofanimals.’

Slaughteringanimalsbecausetheymightdevelopadiseaseforwhichvaccinationispossibleishardlyconducivetotheirwelfare,particularlywhenthetestandslaughterpolicyrelies,asweshallexplainbelow,onaninaccurate,ifnotdysfunctionaltest.

‘Meetourinternational(inparticularEU)anddomesticlegalcommitmentsandmaintaintheUK’sreputationforsafeandhighqualityfood,’and‘MaintainproductiveandsustainablebeefanddairysectorsinEnglandsecuringopportunitiesforinternationaltradeandminimisingenvironmentalimpacts.’

Meetinglegalcommitmentsisnotareasonforhavingthoselegalcommitments.

Defra’s arguments

do not stand up to examination

Page 6

TheUK’sreputationforsafeandhighqualityfoodisnotenhancedbyafailedpolicy.Thepresentpolicyisdoingnothingtomakefarmingproductive,rathertheopposite.Howsuchapolicycanbesustainableorminimizeenvironmentalimpactsisacompletemystery.

TradewithEUcountriesisoftencitedinthiscontext.TherelevantEUprovisionsonlyaffectexportoflivecattle,notmeatanddairyproducts.SincetheBSEbanwaslifted,livecattleexportshaveneverexceeded£3.3millioninannualvalue8.Thiscontroversialtrade(whichincludeslargenumbersofcalvessoldatlowpricesforrearingincontinentalvealcrates)ishardlyworthover£100millionoftaxpayers’moneyspenteveryyearonBovineTBcontrol.

WeneedtoreducethecostofBovineTBtofarmersandtaxpayers.AskanyfarmerwhatthecostofBovineTBisandhewillsaytesting,cullingandmovementrestrictions,imposedbythepresentpolicy.Apolicyaimedatreducingthecostwouldintroducebetterandcheaperwaysofmanagingandpreventingdisease,suchasthoseweconsiderinourconclusion.

WeholdthatnotoneofthediverseandeverchangingreasonsputforwardbyDefrastandsexamination.

However,UKpolicyisultimatelydrivenbytheEUrequiringmemberstatestoeradicateBovineTBandlayingdowntheprecisemeanstobeused,alongwithprohibitionofvaccination9.

NospecificreasonsforEUBovineTBpolicycanbefound,exceptthosefortheoverallCommunityAnimalHealthPolicywhichcoversamultitudeofdiseases,includingBovineTB.ThereasonsstatedfortheCommunityAnimalHealthPolicy10aresimilartothoseusedbyDefrainrespectofBovineTB,andjustasirrelevanttoBovineTB.

NotoneofthereasonsforEUpolicystandsexaminationeither.

Foranygovernmenttointerveneinprivateorbusinessaffairs,andinparticulartotakeandkilllivestock,theremustbeasoundjustificationrootedinthecommongood.Nosuchjustificationhasbeenadvanced.

ThecurrentBovineTBpolicyiswithoutfoundation.

5. How current policy is delivered.UnderthecurrentUK‘testandcull’policy,cattlearetestedatintervalsdeterminedbyriskofinfection.Thosethatfailthetestareslaughteredandsevererestrictionsoncattlemovementareplacedonthefarm.

InthetestprimarilyusedintheUK,asmallamountof

The current Bovine TB policy is without foundation

Page 7

tuberculin(asterileextractobtainedfromacultureofM.bovis)isinjectedintotheanimal.Aswellingwilloccuriftheanimalhaspreviouslybeenchallengedby,andtheimmunesystemhasreactedto,tuberculosisbacteria.

However,reactionsoftheanimal’simmunesystemtoothertypesofmycobacteriacanalsocausetheswelling.Toreducethenumberoffalsediagnosesthiswouldleadto,apreparationofM.avian,theavianformoftuberculosis,isinjectednearby.M.avianiswidelypresentintheenvironment.Itisnotharmfultocattle,althoughtheirimmunesystemreactstoit.

Theswellingsarecomparedafter72hours.Statisticalstudies,ratherthananunderstandingoftheunderlyingbiologicalmechanism,haveindicatedthatiftheM.bovisswellingissignificantlylargerthantheM.avianswelling,areactiontoM.bovishasoccurred.Theanimalisthendeemedtobea‘reactor’andkilled.

Thistestisknownasthe‘skintest’(ormoreproperlyasthesingleintradermalcomparativecervicaltuberculintest).

Abloodtest,thegammainterferontest,isalsousedonsomeoccasionsasanancillarytest.Itevaluatesthesameimmuneresponsebutisconductedinthelaboratory.Therearedocumentedcasesofwildlydifferingresultsfromusingthetwotestsonthesameherd.

Ifananimalfailseithertheskinorbloodtestsitisslaughtered.

Seriousconcerns(someofwhichwewillexplainbelow)existamongscientistsandfarmersabouttheaccuracyofthetests,whileDefragoesasfarastoadmitthetestsare‘imperfect’11.

6. Why ‘test and cull’ is not working.Aftersixtypainfulandexpensiveyearsoftestingandslaughteringcattle,andaninterveningperiodofrelativelyfewincidentsofBovineTB,weareagainseveraldecadesfromanychanceof‘officialTBfree’status.AstheBovineTBAdvisoryGroupconcludedinitsfinalreporttoDefra12;

“BovineTBhasbeenadifficultanddemandingproblemformanyyears.Therearereasonsforbelievingthatitcanbecontrolledandfinallyeradicatedbutthiswillrequirealong-termcommitmentbyallstakeholdersandtakeatleast20years.”

Canweaffordthecostandwillfarmerstolerateanother20yearsofmovementrestrictions,disruptiveandinaccuratetestingandcompulsorycattleculling?

Overtheperiod1998-2009thenumberofnewherdincidents13inGreatBritainincreasedby276%,andthe

The skin test is compromised

by three major shortcomings

Page 8

numberofcattleconsequentlyculled,byastaggering477%.Defrastatesthat;

“Thecausesofthelong-termincreaseinbTBinGBarenotwellunderstoodastherearelikelytobemanyfactorsinvolved”.14

InotherwordsDefradoesnotknowwhytherehasbeenadramaticlongtermincrease,orwhyBovineTBpolicyhasfailed.

Toavoidconfusion,weusetheterm‘officialTBfree’status,whichcorrectlydescribesastateofverylowincidenceofBovineTB.Thisisthebestthetestandcullpolicycouldeverachieve.Defrausestheterm‘eradication’tomeanthesame.However,‘eradication’,usedinascientificorveterinarycontextsuchasthis,meansexterminationofaninfectiousagentsothatnofurthercasesoftherelateddiseasecanoccur.Onlytwodiseaseshaveeverbeeneradicated;smallpoxandrinderpest,thelatterbeingacattledisease.Bothwereeradicatedusingvaccination.

The‘skintest’iscompromisedbythreemajorshortcomings.

1.Falsepositives.AccordingtoDefra11thetestfalselycondemnsonly1in1,000cattletested.(The‘specificity’ofthetest).Thismakesthetestsoundaccurateuntilwhatitreallymeansisrealised.

UsingDefra’stestingfigures15(for2009):

InEngland4,899,144testswereperformed,1in1,000tests,4,899inthose4,899,144,willbefalsereactorsor‘falsepositives’,24,924cattlewereactuallycondemnedasreactors,4,899or1inevery5ofthosecattlewillhavebeenincorrectlycondemned.

InWales1,812,666testswereperformed,1in1,000tests,1,812inthose1,812,666,willbefalsereactorsor‘falsepositives’,10,117cattlewereactuallycondemnedasreactors,1,812cattle,or1inevery6ofthosecattlewillhavebeenincorrectlycondemned.

InScotland229,800testswereperformed,1in1,000tests,229inthose229,800,willbefalsereactorsor‘falsepositives’,323cattlewereactuallycondemnedasreactors,229orastaggering2outofevery3ofthosecattlewillhavebeenincorrectlycondemned.

TheprincipleofthiscalculationhasbeenconfirmedbyDefrainaletterref.RFI3725&RFI3749of19January201117.

Notonlyarethousandsofcattlebeingfalsely

Thousands of cattle are falsely condemned

Page 9

condemned,butasherdsizeincreases,thechanceofafalsepositiveintheherdincreases.Thusthelargertheherd,thegreaterthechancethatsuchafalsepositivewillbethesolecauseofmovementrestrictionsandrepeattestingontheentirefarm,withalltheaccompanyingdisruption,costsandanxietytotheowner.

Thegammainterferonbloodtest,usedonsomeoccasionsasanancillarytest,hasahighersensitivity,thusshowinglessfalsenegatives(see2below)but,havingamassivelyinferiorspecificity.Itcondemnsanevenhigherproportionofcattleasfalsepositives.

2.Falsenegatives.AccordingtoDefra11theskintestmisses1in5cattlethatitshouldidentifyasreactors.(Thisisthe‘sensitivity’ofthetest).Foreveryfour‘reactors’slaughteredinthebeliefthattheyareorwillbecomeinfectiousorinfected,onemoreremainsundetectedandpotentiallyinfectiousintheherdorworsestill,movedtoinfectanotherherdorarea.Ifoneormorereactorshavebeenfoundintheherd,afurthertestisdone60dayslateranditmaythendetectthemissedreactors,ormaybenot.

Inmanycountriesthisshortcomingisrecognizedandtheskintestisusedasaherdtest.AllanimalsintheherdaretestedindividuallyasinBritain,butifasinglereactorisfound,theentireherdisslaughteredandrestockingisdelayed.

3.Afunctionaltestshoulddetectcattlethathave,orwillhave,BovineTB.

Theskintestdoesnotdothis,itidentifiesanimalsthathavecomeintocontactwithM.bovisandmountedanimmunereaction-exactlywhatahealthyanimalshoulddo.

Thelatentinfectionthatremainsmayinsomeoftheseanimalsre-emergeasBovineTB,butnotinall.Allareslaughtered.

Onlyaboutonethirdofreactorsshowevidenceofinfectionatpostmortemandcanbelistedas‘confirmedreactors’.MuchofthecompensationpaidtofarmersisforhealthycattlethatwereunlikelytodevelopBovineTB,orwouldhavebeenslaughteredinthenormalcourseoffarmproductionlongbeforeanysymptomsdeveloped.

Thetestingregime:

Condemnsthousandsofcattleinerror.

Failstodetectasignificantproportionofthosecattlethatareinfected.

Looksforthewrongthing.

‘Test and cull’ is not working

Page 10

Besidestheshortcomingsinthe‘imperfect’testingregime,BovineTBpolicyishavingsevereeffectsonfarming.Healthycattlearebeingslaughteredandfarmersareconsequentlysufferingunnecessarily.IfBovineTBitselfwasaffectingfarmproductivity,evidencewouldhaveemergedbynow.ItisnoteasyforcattletocatchBovineTBandclinicalsymptomsarerarelyseenonfarms.

Testingrequiresunfamiliarandstressfulhandlingofcattle,compromisingbothanimalwelfareandhumansafety.Compensationdoesnotalwayscoverthevalueoftheanimalsandcertainlynottheconsequencesofmovementrestrictionsandlossofcriticalbreedingstock.

Defra,inits‘BovineTuberculosisEvidencePlan2011/12’6states,“...wealsorecognisethatthecurrentTBsurveillanceandcontrolregimeincattle(basedontestandslaughterofreactors)isnotpreventingthespreadofTBtocleanareas,andthattheincidenceofdiseaseinendemicareasappearstobeincreasing.”InotherwordsDefra,toitscredit,recognisesfailureofthepolicy.SadlyDefrahasnotproposedcessationoraviablealternative.

ThedevastatingeffectofBovineTBisnottheeffectofthedisease;itistheeffectoftheBovineTBeradicationpolicy.Thispolicyhasfailed,producinglimited,ifany,resultsandcausingseverehumanandanimalwelfareproblems,atenormouscosttothetaxpayer.

Thepolicyisnotonlyineffective,itisfarworsethanthedisease.

7. Rethink: there must be a better way Whateveraspectisconsidered-farmingprofit,costeffectivenessforthetaxpayer,animalwelfare,humanhealth,conservationorfoodsecurity-thecurrentpolicyisaresoundingfailure.

Nobusiness(orrationalperson)wouldcontinueapolicywhichhadnogoodreasonforexistenceanda60yearhistoryoffailure.

Thecriteriaforasuccessfulpolicywouldbe:

Protectionofhumanhealth.

Protectionofanimalwelfare.

Securityofsupplyofgoodfoodfromaprosperousandfinanciallyself-sufficientfarmingindustry.

Lowornocosttotaxpayers.

Farmsregainprimaryresponsibilityforanimalwelfare,productsafetyandquality.

The current policy has failed

Page 11

What options exist?1.Continuingwiththecurrentpolicy,evenwithmarginalchanges,cannotbeconsideredaseriousoption.

2.Drasticallyincreasedseverityappliedtothecurrentpolicy,alongthelinesofmeasuresadoptedinAustraliaandtheUSA,mightincreaseeffectiveness:

Changingfromcullingofindividualanimalstocompleteherddepopulation,dealingwithwildlifereservoirsanddelayingrestockingofcattle.

Increasedriskbasedandoutofareamovementcontrols.

Morefrequenttestingofcattle,anduseofalternativetests.

Clearlythepoliticalandfinancialcostofsuchmeasureswouldbeprohibitiveandattainmentof‘officialTBfree’statuswouldstilltakedecadestoachieve.

3.AcceptancethatBovineTBisnotasignificanthumanhealthriskintheUKandthatfarmersknowbestwhatwillworkintheircircumstances.

Farmswouldbefreetochoosetovaccinatecattleand/orvariousdegreesofcompulsoryvaccinationcouldbeintroduced.

Milkwouldcontinuetobepasteurised.

Inspectionatabattoirswouldcontinue.

FarmswouldbefreetocontinueroutinetestingandacquireherdTBfreestatusortochoosevaccinatedstatus,inresponsetomarketdemandorfarmpreference.

AnyanimalshowingactualsymptomsofBovineTBwouldbetestedandeitherslaughtered,orinappropriatecases,couldbeisolatedandtreated.

Farmerswouldhavethefreedomtochoose(withinguidelines)themostsuitablemeansforBovineTBcontrolintheircircumstances.Thisishowmostanimalhealthproblemsaresuccessfullymanaged.

Theprincipleobjectiontovaccinationisthat,accordingtoDefra(Optionsforvaccinatingcattleagainstbovinetuberculosis,June200716);“NotallvaccinatedanimalswouldbeprotectedfromTBandthereforevaccinationalonewillnotbesufficienttodemonstratediseasefreestatuswithouttestingandallowtradeinthoseanimals”.Thisisadisingenuousargument,asuseoftheskintesttodemonstrateTBfreestatusandselectpotentiallyinfectiouscattleissubjecttothesameshortcoming.

There must be a better way

Page 12

Vaccinescanbeusedfortwocomplementarypurposes-toprotectindividualsortoprotectpopulations.Novaccineprovidescompleteimmunitytoindividuals,justameasureofprotection.Ifenoughanimalsarevaccinatedwithatypicalvaccineitisnearimpossibleforanepidemictooccur-thisistheprincipleofherdimmunitywhichiscentraltothemanysuccessfulusesofvaccinestocontrolepidemics.

8. ConclusionWearesufferingunderapolicythathasdemonstrablyfailed,atmassivecosttofarmers,tothetaxpayer,andtoanimalwelfare.Atbestitwilltakeseveralmoredecadesofcattletestingandslaughtertoachieve‘officialTBfree’status.

Nosoundreasonexistsforthe‘testandcull’policy.

Abetterwaymustbefound.

When,asisthecasewithBovineTB,nooverridingpublicoranimalwelfareinterestexists,farmersarebestlefttotakeresponsibilityfortheirownanimalsandbusinessdecisions.

Giventhelackofrealpracticalhumanhealthrisk,weproposethatoption3aboveshouldbeadopted.

Farmswouldbefreetochoosetovaccinatecattleand/orvariousdegreesofcompulsoryvaccinationcouldbeintroduced.

Milkwouldcontinuetobepasteurised.

Inspectionatabattoirswouldcontinue.

FarmswouldbefreetocontinueroutinetestingandacquireherdTBfreestatusortochoosevaccinatedstatus,inresponsetomarketdemandorfarmpreference.

AnyanimalshowingactualsymptomsofBovineTBwouldbetestedandeitherslaughtered,orinappropriatecases,couldbeisolatedandtreated.

Farmerswouldhavethefreedomtochoose(withinguidelines)themostsuitablemeansforBovineTBcontrolintheircircumstances.Thisishowmostanimalhealthproblemsaresuccessfullymanaged.

Inadditiontothesavingstotaxpayers,thesavingtofarmersinstress,anxietyandlossofproductionwouldbebeyondcalculation.

Page 13

9. Further information and references‘Public health and bovine tuberculosis: what’s all the fuss about?’ (by Professors Paul R. Torgerson and David J. Torgerson), proposes that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy. They provide evidence to confirm that cattle-to-human transmission is negligible. They believe there is little evidence for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB control. Such evidence is required; otherwise, there is little justification for the large sums of public money spent on bTB control in the UK.

This report can be downloaded from www.rethinkbtb.org and by click-ing the links on the references the relevant documents referred to below will be displayed. (Note: Defra links are liable to change as they continually reorgan-ise their web site).

An independent website, www.bovinetb.co.uk questions and debates existing policy. It also includes case studies which reveal the flaws of the existing tests and how the policy is having an adverse effect on those involved.

Refs:1. ‘Tuberculosis in the UK: Annual report on tuberculosis surveillance in the UK’, 2010. London: Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections, October 2010, pages 7 and 17.2. Professor Paul R Torgerson (co-author of ‘Public health and bovine tuberculosis: what’s all

the fuss about?’), email 22/02/11 tells us that virtually all these cases are either in old people who probably have reactivated old lesions that were acquired before there was compulsory milk pasteurisation or immigrants who were infected overseas. Thus transmis-sion to humans in the UK is virtually zero at the present time.

3 Gilbert et al, Nature 26 May 2005, Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain

Defra, What is Bovine TB Comments by Tony Edwards, then Director of Animal Health Wales, Western Mail 23 June 2009.

4. Survey of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers found dead in Wales, January 2007, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, executive summary, para 1.7.

5. Defra’s ‘Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis’, page 10, para 2.1.6. Defra’s ‘Bovine TB Evidence Plan 2011/12’.7. Defra’s new web site on TB control 8. Freedom of information request on cattle export figures dated 9/2/11 and 10/2/11 from

Gardiner, Joanne (FFG-EKBES, Defra).9. EU Directive 78/52/EEC of 13 December 1977 Chapter III Article 13b. Also see: EU Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of 29 April 2004 Section IX Chapter I Para

4. EU Directive 64/432/EEC.10. EU Community Animal Health Policy11. ‘Dealing with Bovine TB in your herd’, Defra May 2008, Page 13.12. ‘Bovine Tuberculosis in England: Towards Eradication, Final Report of the Bovine TB

Advisory Group’, April 2009, Page 4. 13. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/stats/county.htm

(taking 3 year averages for 1998-2000 and 2007-2009). see also Key herd / animal statistics (by county):1998-2010

14. Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis, Defra, para 22.2.16, page 13.15. Detailed year-end TB statistics (by region): 2009-201016. Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis, Defra, para E10, page 5.17. Defra correspondence, ‘specificity of the tuberculin skin test ‘ref RFI 3725 & RFI 3749

of 19 January 2011.18. Professor David Torgerson, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, England.19. Professor Paul Torgerson, MRCVS. Division of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, Univer-

sity of Zurich, Switzerland

‘Bovine TB, Time for a Rethink’, 2nd Edition

Published by: RETHINK Bovine TB

Tel: 0207 993 5404 Email: farming@rethinkbtb.org

Web: www.rethinkbtb.org