A top price of 2,700gns was achieved and 12 lots sold for 2,000gns or more when the Goostrey herd of Holsteins and Aryshires was dispersed for Griffiths Farming, Cheshire.‘I have not refused to tackle TB in badgers’ – Benn
ENVIRONMENT Secretary Hilary Benn has fiercely rejected accusations that he has refused to tackle bovine TB in badgers.
Responding to criticism of his TB strategy from the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Mr Benn wrote a letter to the Guardian newspaper this week.
“It is not the case that I have refused to tackle bovine TB in badgers,” he wrote.
“My decision against a badger cull was made after careful consideration of the scientific evidence, practicality and public acceptability, following discussions with farmers, vets and wildlife groups.
“We have tried badger culling, but the conclusion of the Independent Scientific Group was that badger culling ‘cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control’ of TB in cattle in Britain.”
Instead Mr Benn said Defra was tackling badgers in other ways.
“We are trying an alternative approach to the problem, by investing £20m over three years to develop badger and cattle vaccines.
“We will start vaccinating badgers in six areas of England, working with farmers, later this year,” he concluded.
The BVA and BCVA letter had said a cull was essential to stop animal suffering: “We know there is a link between bovine TB in cattle and badgers and so we support the fact that the Welsh assembly government is taking action both to tackle the disease and to carry out better research.
“We did not take the decision to support this badger cull lightly, but until we get on top of TB the vast majority of animals that come into contact with it will suffer,” said the vets.
Share
Readers' comments (7)
M Critchley | 28 January 2010 9:58 am
While many will sympathise with Mr Benn's distaste for badger culling, he is forgetting that the 67 page "Badgers and cattle TB: the final report of the
Independent Scientific
Group on Cattle TB" of the EFRA committee revealed that a
subsequent review of the ISG's Final Report, produced at the Government's request,
"...produced a different
interpretation of the same basic data. Both reports said that badger culling would have an overall beneficial effect.
However, whilst the ISG concluded that culling would make a "modest difference" in the incidence of cattle TB, the King report concluded that at
300km2, culling "would have a significant effect on reducing TB in cattle"
The even more recent TB Eradication Group's "Developing a Bovine TB Eradication Programme for England", in its Executive Summary (October 2009) said
"There is no single measure which will achieve the eradication of bovine TB. We will need to have in place and use a range of tools: effective diagnostic tests; targeted cattle controls; and vaccination for badgers and cattle; and to remain open to the possibility of using badger culling. ...."
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28 January 2010 11:23 am
Two words for you, Mr Benn. Public acceptability. And they are your words, not the farming community's - you stood up at the NFU conference and said public acceptability was one of the criteria you would use to make your decision.
Stop hiding behind bogus science, and admit you were afraid of public opinion. Opinion polls and votes were - and still are - more important to you than stopping this disease and the destruction of the livestock industry
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
annabel | 28 January 2010 12:28 pm
Public acceptability is, and must, be a factor. He who pays the piper...
Mr Benn has taken the wisest course of action in the circumstances.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gavin Wheeler | 28 January 2010 9:08 pm
M Critchley, I suspect Mr Benn is well aware that the King report was dismissed by Nature as "an example to governments of how not deal with [scientific advice" and by Professor Denis Mollison, DEFRA's Independant Statistical Auditor for the RBCT, as "unbalanced and inexpert" and a report that "would not have passed my audit"
Sir David King is a very great surface chemist, but he does not know his epidemiology. On this occasion he was speaking out way outside his area of expertise, and the scathing response he received from the scientific community demonstrates how badly he got it wrong.
Mr Benn is doing exactly the right thing - the government commissioned a panel of world experts to study this matter and make a scientific judgment, and the government should now accept that judgment and base their decisions on it. Bravo!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Theo Hopkins | 28 January 2010 10:46 pm
In Northern Ireland the incidence of bTB in the national herd has fallen in about ten years from about 14% to 7%. This has been achieved by strict testing and movement controls. There has been a no cull. Check this on the DARD (NI Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) website.
In the southwest of England, (at least in Devon and Cornwall) over the same time, bTB has rocketed from very little to around 15% incidence.
In England the NFU has refused to countenance any stricter testing and movement controls unless there is a cull at the same time.
To my thinking, the NFU in England, by their intransigence, have added seriously to the spread of this disease to the detriment of their own members.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 February 2010 11:45 am
Can I play Devils advocate here.
Agreed there needs to be more expert discussion on the main issue.
But will people not be satisfied until we make badgers an endangered species-which is what we seem to do with most species that we do not eat- (Ironically not humans)!
Taking the Northern Irelamd perspective, it seems to me then that we need more thought, to do similar, if the TB incidence there has actually fallen.
I have no axe to grind, I support our farming industry but also the natural environment which we have skewed over many centuries.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mick MOOR | 2 February 2010 11:37 am
There is no such thing as "The Natural Environment" in England. Every single square yard is the result of man's activity. The climax vegetation is neither grassland nor moorland,; it is deciduous woodland of limited species such as oak.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment