Cutting tests for Bovine TB will not be popular (From Salisbury Journal)

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?