From the archives of The Memory Hole

HIV=AIDS Controversy: Foot in Mouth Dept

Letters to the editor of the London Times on the 1 March 2001 article cited by Steve Ransom in his article, Foot and Mouth - the Management of a Pseudo-crisis.


TUESDAY MARCH 06 2001
The economics of food and farming
FROM MR S. E. SCAMMELL

Sir, There is probably little realisation of how and why the slaughter policy arose to combat foot-and-mouth, although it is well-remembered by a diminishing older generation, of which I am one. Abigail Wood's article (Times 2, March 1) setting out the circumstances was therefore doubly welcome.

Foot-and-mouth was always endemic on the Continent. It does not kill, except perhaps an occasional weakling. The animals recover, but are probably thereafter not good doers, ie, less productive. Their products, however, are harmless to us. If the fall-off was severe the farmer would probably cull the beast to the butcher. In any case his loss was not serious and was accepted as a normal trade hazard, and in most of Europe no compensation was therefore given. Attempts were, of course, made to check outbreaks by isolation, but there was no destruction of stock, whether healthy or sick.

Only in Britain was it considered desirable to supplement isolation with slaughter, on a dubious assumption that a) the outbreak was then more easily extinguished and b) the resultant direct and indirect cost would, over the years, be less than the damage done by the alternative loss of a supposed premium on our stock exports as coming from a disease-free country.

Eventually some European countries, not without severe British pressure and considerable doubts, added to the isolation policy the compensated slaughter policy. Evidently the supposed economic justification, if it holds at all, will not hold when an outbreak has run out of control and become nationwide, and the slaughter policy should then be suspended. But whether the Government will have the courage to do so may be doubtful.

Yours faithfully,
S. E. SCAMMELL,
Clouds Estate Office,
East Knoyle, Salisbury,
Wiltshire SP3 6BE.
March 5.

From Dr J. D. Gunner

Sir, About as serious as a bad cold, writes Abigail Wood of foot-and-mouth.

Can this be the same disease described as resulting in 5 per cent mortality in ordinary mild epidemics and up to 50 per cent with malignant forms of the disease, accompanied by abortion and lameness (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition)?

Yours faithfully,
J. D. GUNNER,
Hawkshead Hill Farm,
Hawkshead Hill,
Ambleside, Cumbria LA22 0PW
March 4.

From the President of The Guild of Food Writers

Sir, Once the current foot-and-mouth crisis is resolved, on behalf of the guild's committee I urge the Government and the food industry finally to accept that bowing to pressure to provide meat too cheaply is a false economy that has resulted in a catalogue of food safety scares and other issues which are of understandable concern to consumers.

The current crisis clearly demonstrates the increasing difficulty of containing such an outbreak, and although the Government may be about to ease punitive financial measures on local abattoirs, this has come too late for those forced to close.

The transport of animals across the country is not just a question of lack of local facilities, however, but also of the large buyers' insistence on centralised processing. We would urge a shift of emphasis that positively favours local abattoirs, thus improving animal welfare and the quality of meat, as well as lessening the risk of any disease being spread.

The provision of cheap meat at any cost has led to the Government being forced to accept imports from countries with very different animal husbandry practices from those in the UK. It also encourages a system vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous traders. Much of this meat is sold to the consumer via the catering trade and in manufactured products, where there is no obligation to identify it.

As food writers we educate consumers on issues such as animal welfare, disease, nutrition, irradiation, GM foods and food miles but, because of the UK's woefully inadequate labelling regulations, it is impossible at present for consumers to make an informed choice.

This outbreak presents an opportunity to reassess the way the food chain now operates at the expense of farming communities, animal welfare, public health and the quality of the food we eat.

Yours faithfully,
SARAH-JANE EVANS,
President,
The Guild of Food Writers,
48 Crabtree Lane, SW6 6LW.
March 5.

Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website.