CFG
33/07
Letter dated 12 November
2007 from Foodaware to Dr Iain Anderson, Cabinet Office:
Dear Dr Anderson
Foot and Mouth Review: 2007
Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group coordinates the broad UK
consumer movement’s work on food safety, nutrition and standards.
Our mission is to give UK consumers a strong voice on food policy
by bringing together the organisations that represent them. We also
consult and support the UK consumer representatives on food related
advisory committees, and further the public understanding of science.
Our members are consumer, women’s, family, ethnic, and enforcement
organisations, who also contribute time and expertise to our representations.
We have members in all areas of the United Kingdom.
Some of our members live in rural communities which were particularly
hard hit by the impact of the 2001 Foot and Mouth epidemic. The initial
outbreaks this year have affected the Home Counties where we also
have members. Foot and mouth disease impacts directly on farmers,
slaughterhouses, and food businesses. There is no direct implication
for food safety, but our members have taken an interest in the potential
impact on the food chain, on retail supply of meat and on the countryside
in which they live. Members have also contributed to discussions on
the development of the UK Animal Health and Welfare Strategy and the
European Commission Animal Health Strategy and support the Government’s
desire to ensure that relevant lessons can be learnt from this outbreak
and that improvements in the management of the outbreak should be
acknowledged.
Our comments are from a consumer perspective and so are inevitably
brief. There are four particular areas on which we wish to make observations:
1. Defra’s handling of
the policy implementation
As external, lay observers, it seemed to us that the initial decision-making
proceeded promptly and effectively and the decisive action taken in
response to the outbreak was appropriate and necessary to limit spread
and keep the impact of this dreadful disease to a minimum. From the
anecdotal evidence available to us, it would seem that the surveillance
activity was also effective and that Defra were assisted by heightened
scrutiny by the farming community and early reporting of potential
cases by farmers and vets. It would be beneficial to all, if this
level of reporting could be sustained not just for foot and mouth
but to report other notifiable animal diseases (such as Blue Tongue)
at the earliest possible opportunity to minimise potential spread
and allow a thorough investigation to take place.
The importance of animal owners and research laboratories taking responsibility
for bio-security cannot be overstated. Defra should continue to press
the importance of such measures to protect the farming industry and
wider public. Hobby farmers and those who keep a small number of animals
and birds for their own consumption or as pets, need to appreciate
their liability and responsibilities too. We hope that Defra’s
commitment to partnership working will further improve the understanding
between policy makers, front line enforcement agencies, farmers and
consumers so that the rationale for different policy approaches is
understood.
We would like your review to address the question of the adequacy
of incineration facilities to meet the needs of an FMD or similar
disease outbreak. We understand that the movement of infected animals
from Surrey to Sussex was authorised because of a lack of local disposal
facilities. There were suggestions in the Press that the risks of
spread may have been materially increased by the absence of suitable
disposal facilities in the area close to the initial outbreak. We
know that specially sealed lorries were used, and particular measures
taken to ensure there was no further spread of the disease, but would
appreciate your assessment of the risk, adequacy and appropriateness
of the disposal arrangements.
Foodaware would also appreciate an assessment of the total cost to
consumers, farmers and taxpayers of what appears to have been a wholly
preventable outbreak caused predominantly by a lack of investment
from public funds in routine maintenance resulting in an unacceptable
breach in bio-security.
2. Public Communication
Public statements by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr Debbie Reynolds,
were extremely timely and clear, giving the public appropriate reassurance
without under-estimating the challenges or the impact. We have said
in the past that there is a need for ‘scientific information
to be communicated clearly in ways which are relevant, useful, easy
to understand and consistent’ [1].
On this occasion we feel this was achieved and commend Defra for it.
We particularly valued the regular reporting and the openness of Defra’s
communication at each stage of the outbreak. This has not happened
in the past and was much appreciated.
Steps were also taken to consult with consumer representatives by
teleconference throughout the outbreak. This was a new initiative
and kept open two-way channels of communication allowing those participating
to raise any questions, seek clarification of issues and facts, offer
advice and report on matters of concern to members at the grass roots.
Several senior Defra personnel participated and provided up to date
information. This was a quick, efficient, cost-effective and valuable
point of contact and should be acknowledged as good practice for future
outbreaks or crises.
3. Food availability
Apart from localised shortages in the early stages of the outbreak,
we were unaware of particular impacts on the availability of meat
in retail shops despite the inevitable disruption of the supply chain.
It would be useful to understand how this was achieved and to what
extent prices were affected.
4. Public Confidence
Public confidence in the handling of this outbreak at a national level
was undoubtedly enhanced by the openness of communication, clarity
of the messages, and appearance that Government Agencies were in control,
carrying out appropriate investigations and reporting the results
(whether good or bad news) as soon as they became available.
There was not the same clarity in the communications between different
agencies, and we were aware of confusion on the ground in Surrey where
farmers and/or local authorities put conflicting notices on footpaths
and lack of clarification in local newspapers meant the public did
not know where they could go within the control zone.
It is obviously a matter of enormous concern to all parties that the
cause of the initial cases was escape of virus from the site of a
Government laboratory and vaccine production plant, and we will continue
to take an interest in the safety of such facilities and the effectiveness
of controls by the relevant Agencies. This episode has exposed a weakness
in Defra’s role in providing funding for and enforcing health
and safety standards in its laboratory agencies, and we are pleased
that the government is addressing this issue as a matter of some urgency.
Yours sincerely
Susan Knox
Chairman
1 Foodaware Submission to the Policy Commission
on Farming and Food, CFG 08/01 rev. available
at www.foodaware.org.uk
|
