I’m fed up with talking about the weather, but I can console myself with the fact we have grabbed every opportunity so far and progress is not too bad.Badger Trust branded 'ridiculous' by ex-Defra advisor
THE Badger Trust has been accused of making ‘ridiculous’ claims over the suffering of badgers affected by bovine TB (bTB).
The trust has accused Jim Fitzpatrick of falling for the ‘emotional propaganda’ and ‘scaremongering’ of the pro-badger cull lobby in response to comments the Farming Minister made in a recent interview with Farmers Guardian.
Speaking during a recent visit to the South West of England, Mr Fitzpatrick said: “What I had perhaps not recognised before is the pain and suffering being inflicted on the badger population. They are dying in numbers. This is almost an issue for their welfare and survival as much as it is for dairy herds.”
The Badger Trust responded by writing to Mr Fitzpatrick telling him: “We know of no scientific evidence or authoritative validation for a statement of that kind, though we are, of course, aware that similar but totally unsubstantiated claims have been made repeatedly by pro-cull lobbies in an attempt to emotionally influence the public to support their case,” the Trust said.
The Trust claimed Government-funded research ‘convincingly undermined those assertions which can best be categorised as deliberate scaremongering’. For example, it pointed to what it said was the ‘only published assessment of causes of mortality in badgers’ at Woodchester Park, in 1997, in which bTB was ‘not identified as an important factor’.
The badger group said unpublished data from Woodchester showed badgers with active TB infections ‘do not necessarily exhibit any clinical signs and may live for several years, and successfully produce cubs’.
It added that as it was ‘widely accepted that TB in badgers can only be accurately diagnosed at post mortem’ claims of obvious visual disease ‘have to be rejected’.
But John Gallagher, a former independent adviser to Defra on bTB who worked in the field for 23 years on badger culling with MAFF, described the Badger Trust’s claims as ‘ridiculous’.
“Badgers have no divine rights over TB and as disease takes hold they lose bodyweight and condition, while the disease processes gradually invade and finally engulf their lungs over a period of many months.
“Proper appraisal will show, as with any species with a slowly developing pneumonia, that respiratory disease signs worsen as disease advances. Also kidney disease frequently occurs and as this can be acutely painful. In the badger this results in a more rapid deterioration of condition.
“Does TB cause painful disease? It is rather naive to assume that it does not.”
Share
Readers' comments (5)
Anonymous | 5 March 2010 7:29 pm
I suggest that anyone who has an interest in bTB should read the recently published ‘Public Health and bovine tuberculosis – what’s all the fuss about’ by Paul R Torgerson and David J Torgenson. It is a very well researched and referenced article, which concludes that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy and there is little evidence either for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB control. It suggests that such evidence is required; otherwise there is little justification for the large sums of money spent on bTB control in the UK. It is time for a radical re-think on policy. We already have reports that conclude culling of badgers is not good value for money. 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 for cattle. An unpopular cull, which is now proven to be a waste of tax payers’ money, as well as not being 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.
Despite a compulsory testing regime for some fifty years, we are told bTB is now endemic in many areas of the UK. 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. How accurate and up to date is the scientific data behind the claims of its sensitivity and positive productive values? Less than 30% of cattle slaughtered under the existing skin test system are shown to have bTB. Whilst reasons are given for this, they are weak and open to challenge without substantive scientific evidence, which is not made available. 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. It is generally accepted that nowadays bTB poses negligible risk to human health. The existing policy is all about maintaining TB free status and protecting exports (despite the fact that the cost of the bTB programme is apparently in excess of the value of live exports – only 1.4% of cattle are exported). 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. 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 possible?
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 for bTB? As the two disease 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?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
chrisbradley | 9 March 2010 12:36 pm
The above sounds good, so why don't we have compulsory vaccination for our cattle and keep our herds clear. The badgers can then regulate themselves, as surely the densest populations will succumb and leave healthy, outlying groups unaffected.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Stevenson | 10 March 2010 1:14 am
The reason we don`t start immediately on a cattle vaccination programme is that no vaccine exists , or is likely to in the near future.
bTB has been spreading into other domestic animals and a veterinary nurse was infected last year.
The EU is mostly free of bTB and wouldn`t tolerate the disease being allowed to run free in the UK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
E Ashman | 10 March 2010 12:17 pm
Successive Governments have ben lilling badgers for the last 30 years in the guise of controlling bovine Tb. we have been told, for almost the same length of time that a cattle vaccine is five years away. How much longer do we have to wait?
It appears the farming fraternity, or is it just the NFU do not want a cattle vaccine, for what reason?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Flo Fflach | 12 March 2010 3:13 pm
Cows with a substanial amount of lesions caused by bTB can look (and act) incredibly healthy with no weight loss or apparant illness. I have witnessed this. So I would suggest it could be the same for badgers. this proposed cull is not to save badgers from bTB. And they could be vaccinted if necessary. the vaccine for cows isn'tr available because as yet ther eis no test that can discriminate between a vacinated cow and one with the disease - neither is there one that can tell if an animal has natural immunity...so they get slaughtered too, when maybe we should breed from them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment