-----Original Message-----
From: Wally Dove <wdove@halhinet.on.ca>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:27 PM
Subject: Vaccinations & Canadian Government Info.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rev. C. D. Thomson <strangersandpilgrims@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:48 AM
Subject: Vaccinations & Canadian Government Info.
REPORT FROM ONTARIO, CANADA
Last Thursday, April 12, 2001, I attended an information meeting on FMD, held in a small
community centre building, in a small Ontario town, where it was standing-room-only for
about 500 dairy, pig, sheep, and cattle farmers.
This event was part of a multi-region tour featuring two "experts", a Dr.
Stanford and a Dr. John Churchill, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and from the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). I am not sure
which gentleman was from which government office, as it took a while for me to gradually
move from the outer hallway to a place on the floor in the meeting hall, once the session
began.
Dr. Churchill stated he is with the "Special Diagnostic Unit 1" and is being
sent to Great Britain shortly to provide assistance, and this is not the first time he has
been sent overseas to help in the management of animal epidemics. It was stated that Dr.
Churchill has spent some years working at the Plum Island facility in New York State.
I found that interesting, because Plum Island conducts bacteriological warfare
research.
Theirs was a smooth and professional presentation, complete with a computerized slide
show. The purpose appeared to be to prepare Ontario farmers to accept the inevitable
if and when FMD is detected in this country. The experts here agree with what is
being done in Britain, and they foresee the same events taking place in Canada.
Regarding the feasibility of vaccinations, please note.... Dr. John Churchill stated that
EVEN IF THERE IS A VACCINATION PROGRAM, ALL VACCINATED ANIMALS WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO BE
KILLED ALSO. This is because the vaccinated animals still carry the disease and can
still "shed" the virus. But the reason is also economic. The
vaccinated animals must all be killed in order for a country to regain FMD-free status.
FMD-free status ensures that animal products are sold on the world market at a
higher price than otherwise.
Dr. Churchill told our farming neighbours that more than 50% of Canadian animal products
are sold for export, and so losing Canada's export market would result in half the farmers
in the room going out of business. He made it very personal, you see. He added
that once a country loses its FMD-free status, the domestic market is flooded with cheap
animal products from Third World countries.
The British experience was described as unfortunate, but absolutely necessary. There was
no mention of ecological damage. Dr. Churchill stated burying animals was preferable
to burning them, but did not explain why. Instead he
showed aslide to explain exactly how the funeral pyres are to be constructed, and with
what layers of materials.
Dr. Stanford dealt with practical issues of "biosecurity", telling the farmers
what they had to do to prevent FMD from being spread among their flocks. He stressed the
posting of signs, to keep visitors out of barns. He displayed plastic boots and
coveralls, and recommended antiseptic solutions.
Dr. Stanford described the FMD 'O' virus as "an aggressive and vicious" virus,
which can overpower the old, traditional FMD virus. He explained that this type 'O'
FMD virus had migrated from South Africa, to Asia, to the UK, and to continental Europe.
Dr. Stanford emphasized prevention, but he did not mention that in Britain animals are
presumed to be at risk, and the farmers' preventive measures are not taken into
consideration when the animals are slaughtered.
Dr. Churchill explained the aerosol nature of FMD. It is spread in the air, and can
travel a few hundred kilometres if the air is moist. There doesn't even have to be a
strong wind.
The FMD virus can be carried in the back of the human throat for 36 hours. Experiments
have been conducted in which people exposed to the virus breathed into the mouth of an
animal, which then became infected.
The guidelines posted on the website of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency advise that
anyone returning to Canada from England, who has travelled in the infected areas, should
not enter a barn in Canada, even their own barn, for two weeks.
The audience of farmers applauded after each presentation, and the majority were clearly
confident that if they cleaned up organic material from their barn boots they had nothing
to fear. If FMD is identified in Canada, these men and their families will want to
believe the government is doing what's best.
The meeting closed with Dr. Churchill putting up a slide which contained the words to a
prayer for the animals, which he asked the audience to read silently to themselves because
he stated he found it sometimes too difficult to read it aloud himself. He
told them that all the people working to stop the epidemic in England were under severe
stress, and counsellors were available to help them at any time as they fulfilled
their difficult responsibilities.
During the Question & Answer period, one individual at the meeting raised the point
that FMD-free status could never be maintained now, since the logistics of global
agricultural trade, plus ongoing smuggling, have changed the playing field so greatly.
The person questioned whether these terrible remedies were necessary, since strong,
healthy animals will resist infection and still be productive, while their meat
remains safe for human consumption.
Dr. Mitchell made no reply to these points, but reiterated the economic impact of lost
FMD-free status.
Another question could have been asked, which is what global interests stand to gain, as
thousands of family farms in England, Scotland, Wales, the Netherlands, and possibly
Canada and elsewhere, are lost forever?
I did not ask that question, because the mood in the room after my previous statement did
not appear particularly receptive.
- Rev. C.D. Thomson
Greg Lance - Watkins wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for that - it will be up on:
www.SilentMajority.co.UK/FootInMouth
later this evening.
If you have a chance can you have a quick wander around the site and see if there is
anything vital missing in your opinion.
ALSO can you re-send UPDATES #4 & #5 - I've lost them in the sequence somewhere.
Thanks Richard.
ALSO do look at our new site from tomorrow onwards:
www.SilentMajority.co.UK/EUroRealist/CENSUS
Regards,
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: <RAENORTH@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 9:08 PM
Subject: FMD - Vaccination and Disease-Free Status
FMD - UPDATE 6
Richard North
16 April 2001
Vaccination and Disease-free status
Amazingly, the government and its scientific advisors have just woken up,to the prospect
of winter-housed cattle being turned out on to grass. They have finally realised
that these animals will be vulnerable to infection - a problem identified by this author
on 25 March. One wonders which planet these people have been living on for the past
six weeks.
Nevertheless, for that reason, the MAFF is now reversing its opposition to vaccination and
coming round to the idea that it is essential to prevent a new round of infection.
But the issue lurches into the surreal with discussions about how vaccination will affect
Britain's disease-free status. What commentators seem to fail to have realised is
that we are in the middle of a foot and mouth epidemic.We have already lost our
disease-free status. The question is, therefore, not whether we lose it but how we
get it back.
Here, there is terrible confusion, not least because of the complexity of the rules and
the failure to understand that - with EU involvement - we are operating under two
different sets of rules, the international rules set out by the OIE and the internal rules
set by the EU.
Of the two sets of rules, however, the OIE international rules are of very little
relevance as our ability to trade, both with the community and with third countries is
determined by the EU, which is not a signatory to the OIE and is not bound by its
provisions. What count, therefore, are the internal EU rules.
In this context, UK trade with the community was banned by a decision made on 21 February
(Commission Decision 2001/145/EC) amended several times. However, the specific executive
instrument (which authorises a prohibition on trade) does not appear to be identified in
the Decision.
To that effect, the Decision relies for its authority on Council Directive 90/425/EEC as
last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC and Council 89/662/EEC, again amended by Directive
92/118/EEC, and on Directive 85/511/EEC (as amended). But none of these instruments
appear specifically to authorise the Commission to prohibit intra-community or third
country trade.
Therefore, it must be assumed that the Commission is relying for its authority on the
Treaty establishing the European Community, in which case the operative Article is most
certainly Article 30 (formerly Article 36) of the TEC. Additionally, though, the
Commission might also be relying on general authority to act in relation to foot and mouth
disease, conferred by
Article 16 of Directive 85/511/EEC - "The Commission shall adopt measures and shall
implement them immediately."
Either being the case, there are no clearly defined rules by which the Commission - having
prohibited intra-community trade - is or will be bound in removing the prohibition, other
than having to refer to the standing veterinary committee for an opinion.
On this basis, it cannot be assumed that the Commission will necessarily be bound by the
OIE code, removing restrictions one year after vaccination or, as the case may be, three
months or one year after the last outbreak, as is specified in that code. We are in
uncharted waters. There are no specific Community rules.
Clearly, however, restrictions will not be removed until some time after the current
epidemic has been brought under control. Some clues as to how the Commission will
approach this are given in Council Decision 2001/257/EEC (authorising vaccination in the
UK), where the authority of Article 16 (85/511/EEC) is cited in respect of restrictions
applied to fresh meat. Here it is specified that those restrictions shall apply "not
earlier than 12 months after the completion of vaccination and 12 months after the latest
outbreak in the vaccination zone, whichever is the latest.
It is possible, on this basis, that the Commission might apply these criteria to the
generla export prohibition, but this cannot be guaranteed. Once again, therefore, we are
in that twilight world that arises from our membership of the EU, the shadowy world we
first encountered at Florence in June 1996 when John Major had to negotiate the terms for
the lifting of the export ban on
British beef. Then we were in uncharted waters and the resolution of the ban was
determined as much by political as technical issues, none of which could have been
predicted in advance.
Following the BSE precedent, it would be similarly unwise to predict, when, and on what
terms, the export ban for British livestock, meat and meat products will actually be
lifted. The only thing we can predict with any certainty is that negotiations will
be intensely political and their outcome will be determined by a myriad of factors, many
of which we cannot at this stage anticipate.
Logically, therefore, it would be equally unwise to factor in calculations on the
restoration of disease-free status into our considerations of whether or not we should
vaccinate. The only thing which is important in this context is whether vaccination
will end the epidemic faster than if no such action was taken. For, if there is any
certainty, the export ban will not be lifted
until foot and mouth has been eliminated from the UK.
==================================================================================