Doubts over vaccination
From Mr Ian Gardiner Sir: Emma Tennant ('Senseless slaughter', 20 October) has repeated the falsehood that the National Farmers' Union (NFU) opposed vaccination because of the threat to exports.
The only form of vaccination that was ever seriously suggested during the outbreak was for a temporary limited policy for cattle.
Given that whether we vaccinated or not we could not resume exports until the disease had been eliminated, and given that our exports of beef are for the moment minimal because of BSE, it should be clear that exports were never a major consideration in forming the NFU's view, The question of markets, though especially for milk and dairy products — was an issue, and was the reason why the food industry never supported vaccination. But the primary reason that the NFU opposed the very limited programme of vaccination was that no one could give us the assurance that it would actually shorten the epidemic, reduce the number of animals exposed to the disease and therefore reduce the number slaughtered. Expert and scientific advice on this crucial point was hopelessly divided.
We have always said that we will look with an open mind at whether vaccination may be used in other circumstances in the future. That is still the case.
Vaccination is an emotive subject; it is divisive, and there are no easy or clear-cut answers. Emma Tennant has understandably been deeply upset at the outbreak so close to her farm. The NFU fully appreciates the trauma and anguish that foot-andmouth has caused to all farmers. But throughout this outbreak we have sought to keep an open mind, weigh up all the evidence, and take responsible positions with the good of the entire industry in mind.
Ian Gardiner
Deputy Director General, National Farmers' Union, London WC2
Previous page
