I submit that one of the most important lessons learned in the 2002 Inquiry was that the unnecessary of thousands of healthy animals that were not infected with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), should never happen again.

Furthermore, several Inquiries recommended that in the event of an outbreak of FMD in future, the use of ring fence vaccination to control disease should be considered.

However, it has become apparent, as far as I can tell from the figures available, that this year the method of disease control did not change and although the DVO, Debby Reynolds at DEFRA, stated that vaccination was ‘being considered’, it was never used.

Furthermore, I understand from the response to parliamentary questions asked by Peter Ainsworth MP, that although diagnostic tests are available they seem not to have been used prior to slaughter in many cases.

The answer from Jonathan Shaw reveals - ‘At least one animal tested positive for foot and mouth disease at all eight of the infected premises’

Therefore, it appears that we have had the situation where perhaps only one animal tested positive on one of the holdings and yet all the other holdings owned by the same farmer were automatically slaughtered out, with not a single animal on them having been infected with FMD.

In this the 21^st Century, with modern technology and proven diagnostic tests, this is totally unnecessary and quite unacceptable.

With strict movement controls and surveillance, all these animals need not have died and they could have been tested and monitored, as was the advice of Dr. Paul Kitching, formerly at IAH Pirbright, back in 2001.

I can understand the reluctance to use vaccination as a disease control strategy. Even though the EU had given permission for its use, it would have delayed the resumption of Exports by a further three months, which I am sure the DEFRA and the Government were hoping to avoid.

Nevertheless, if the diagnostic test had been used on the animals on any holdings owned by the same farmer but in a different location from the IP, only those found infected would have needed to be destroyed. Vaccination and ring vaccination would have contained the disease and protected the remaining livestock in the area from infection.

By the same token, a test, if found negative and followed by vaccination, could have been used on holdings deemed ‘Dangerous Contacts’. This would have halted the disease too and farmers such as the Emersons, whose animals we know now were all negative, would not have lost over three hundred (300) livestock, cattle, pigs and goats, as Dangerous Contacts.

When scientific research has established that tests exist to determine whether animals are infected, vaccinated or recovered, they should surely be used.

Never again should farmers have to relinquish they livestock to be slaughtered, only to find they were quite healthy and uninfected afterwards.

With kind regards,