![]() |
|
The |
|
The
Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) is pleased to respond to the Lessons
have been learnt from the epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
and although there is no evidence that there is naturally occurring
‘BSE’ in the UK sheep flock, it is essential to have a contingency
plan for responding, should it be detected. There
is also a question over the purpose of the current plan and its target
audience. On the basis of the past experience with BSE in cattle (and
also the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak), there is a need for a plan
that sets out clearly and simply what will happen under a given set of
circumstances, and aimed at the agricultural industry, the media and the
general public. Judged against that need, the current document is too
complicated and discursive and something much closer to an ‘action
plan’ will be required. However, against this background the document
is a fair summary of current understanding and the strategic steps set
out are logical and defensible. The
specific questions in the consultation paper are now addressed below: Age
cut offs: differences between SEAC advice and EC guidelines Potential problems if age cut-offs in the European Commission’s guidelines take precedence over those recommended by SEAC Every effort should be made to bring the EU guidelines on age cut-off, for animals permitted into the food chain, into line with those developed by SEAC, as the SEAC figures are scientifically based. Current evidence indicates that both ARR heterozygous and ARR homozygous sheep are resistant to Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs). Therefore they should not present a risk in the food chain and only reducing the age to 12 months for the former, as recommended by SEAC, should be a more than adequate precaution, as opposed to the EU proposal of 18 months for ARR homozygous and 6 months for ARR heterozygous sheep. If
the EC guidelines take precedence over those recommended by SEAC, the
larger cull would be more expensive and might represent specific
problems for The
disease What measures might be possible for the goat sector given that genotyping would not be an option There
could be a case for treating goats separately from sheep, as their
methods of husbandry are different from those of sheep, with goats only
to be brought under the legislation if a BSE-like condition is confirmed
in them. In that eventuality all goats above the agreed cut-off age
would have to be destroyed together with their products, including milk
until the condition has been eradicated from the national herd.
Importation of unaffected stock from a BSE free country would provide a
basis for rapid restocking in the Communications
Which interests should be represented on the Defra core Stakeholder group There
should be a co-ordinating UK Stakeholder group, with representation from
devolved administrations, and interested sectors, such as the sheep
industry, goat breeders, the veterinary profession, the meat industry,
consumers’ associations, the food industry, animal/veterinary
scientists, and the CJD families' group. Such a group would also provide
the focus for liaison with the EU. Drawing from this group, Defra and
the devolved administrations should each communicate to their own
industry and the FSA should take the lead in communication to consumers. Whether the RPA or farmers themselves should be responsible for making arrangements with abattoirs for their animals to be collected and disposed of To ensure the smooth running of the scheme and to reduce the possibility of abuse, the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) should co-ordinate the disposal of animals. However, the present plan places a substantial burden of organisation on the RPA, with a high risk of overload and of breakdown in the relatively complex administrative arrangements. A simpler approach, in which farmers make local arrangements following authorisation, would seem to have advantages. Consideration of pasture contamination could also be part of ongoing measures to monitor prion disorders in flocks following a cull. Implementation
issues Age verification in sheep Veterinarians will advise on age verification in sheep but the age of eruption of the permanent incisors can vary according to breed and feeding. It would be better in financial planning to allow for the date-based scenario, with only lambs slaughtered before a certain month each year being allowed into the food chain. However, 31 December would be too early for many hill breeds which make up most of the premium sheep killed in the first three months of the year (they are normally born from April onwards the previous year and are known as hoggets by this time). A cut-off point of 31 March would be more appropriate for them. Annexes The draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment The impact assessment is appropriate, given the scenarios tested, and while the financial costs can be only very approximate, they are clearly considerable and highlight the scientific and economic importance of developing generic testing systems for TSEs. However, the psychological cost to the farming community is not mentioned and will also be considerable. A cull of sheep and goats, following the epidemics of BSE and foot and mouth disease, will be devastating for farming communities and a possibly a death knell for specialised breeding herds (particularly of goats). Additional Information In responding to this consultation the Society would like to draw attention to the following Royal Society of Edinburgh responses which are of relevance to this subject: A contingency plan for the possibility of BSE in sheep (January 2002) and National Scrapie Plan: Scrapie Flocks Scheme (February 2003). August 2004
|