We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.NFU 2010: Benn under fire on TB decision
DEFRA Secretary Hilary Benn came under sustained attack over his policies on bovine TB as he delivered his address to the NFU conference.
Mr Benn was heckled within seconds of starting of his speech, as farmers from the South West vented their anger at his refusal to cull badgers.
During his speech he accepted that most people in the room disagreed with him on the issue but defended his decision, which he said he continued to ‘stand by’.
“It was made on the basis of trying culling, the views of the Independent Scientific Group, the practicality of delivering a successful cull, and not wanting to do something that might make a terrible disease even worse than it is already.
“Of course, we’ll be watching what happens in Wales closely, and we will look carefully at the results of the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project in the six areas in England, starting this summer. We’ll listen to the views of the farmers who take part. And we will go on investing in badger and cattle vaccines that must be the way out of this nightmare.”
But this was met with more heckling as farmers voiced their doubts about vaccination from the floor and yet again left the Minister in doubts about the depth of anger felt from within the industry on this issue.
Mr Benn then clashed with NFU president Peter Kendall, who urged him look at the reality of badger culling policies in Ireland and New Zealand, not experiments in the countryside.
A rattled Mr Benn hit back, insisting that the RBCT was ‘not a laboratory experiment’ but was ‘about killing badgers’.
Earlier Mr Kendall asked all main political parties: “What are you going to do to eradicate bovine TB.”
He said the answer matters to a ‘a rapidly increasing proportion of rural communities’ and would be a ‘major factor’ in how farmers cast their vote at the General Election.
“Farmers want political leadership on this issue,” he said.
Readers' comments (3)
Anonymous | 23 February 2010 1:36 pm
What most people don't realise that we as farmers would not completley get rid of all badgers but would reduce numbers as they have been allowed to explode in the countryside and do upmost damage to land and woodland
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 February 2010 7:34 pm
Tony Ben should be congratulated on his firm stance. We now have reports from reputable sources that conclude culling of badgers is not good value for money. I suggest that all policy makers, NFU representatives and anyone else with 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.
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. The proposed badger cull in Pembrokeshire has serious human rights and civil liberties issues, and it creates a dangerous precedent, particularly if landowners affected have not experienced herd breakdowns and are convinced their local badgers are healthy (Chris Chapman’s new film Bovine TB – a Way Forward, stresses the importance of retaining healthy sets). 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 is beginning to have serious implications for tourism and food industries.
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 too 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 (only 1.4% of cattle are exported and the cost of the existing bTB programme is well in excess of the value of such live 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. 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?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Cliff Benson | 23 February 2010 10:26 pm
The Welsh Assembly Government Rural Affairs Minister Ellen Jones and her Chief Veterinary Officer Christianne Glossop are beginning to feel the cold wind of public disapproval blow around them after the hot air of the Farming unions lobbying . They are increasingly becoming isolated by Scientific condemnation and Hillary Ben would feel the same where he to bend to the disproportionate power of the Farming unions lobby . Many Farmers and landowners are against the cull here in Wales and as the public becomes more aware of what is being proposed, the cull will become politically as well as scientifically and morally insupportable
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment