Foot and mouth: leasons learned?

My first reaction to the news that the latest UK foot and mouth disease outbreak may have begun in a lab making vaccines was: why do we even have a lab making foot and mouth vaccine here? Farmers and the rural bureaucracy have always been fiercely opposed to the use of vaccines in controlling the disease. That's why hundreds of thousands of healthy animals were thrown onto monstrous funeral pyres during the last outbreak, in 2001.

But I may be wrong. Politicians are always fond of saying that "lessons will be learned" when things go awry. Usually they're not, but it does seem as if the handling of this latest outbreak is a lot smarter than it was in 2001 (and there's been no bogus emotional gurning from Tony Blair, either). The movement restrictions have been imposed much faster, and the burning of animals in open fields has given way to a more private incineration. Perhaps most important, it now seems that there is a greater likelihood that vaccines will be employed if, God forbid, the current outbreak becomes much larger.

Foot and mouth is not a killer disease for mature animals, but it debilitates them badly and drastically reduces their production of milk and meat. It's endemic in many parts of the world (such as South America), and vaccines are widely used there to control its spread. Nobody objects to eating meat from these herds, and it is freely imported into the UK. For domestic herds, however, it seems there has always been a presumption that meat from vaccinated animals should not enter the human food chain. This has led directly to the use of incineration as a method of controlling foot and mouth: if you can't inoculate your animals and you can't move them around because of fears of spreading the disease, it's better to slaughter them so they don't eat all of your feed.

The images of burning animals from the last outbreak, combined with the growing realisation that vaccination is an acceptable course of action, seem to have convinced public opinion that mass incineration simply cannot be permitted this time. Some farmers may object, but frankly their spotty track record in controlling the disease does not give them the right to dictate how it should be controlled.

One last thought: during the 2001 outbreak, Tony Blair was eventually compelled to bring in the Army to manage the fight against the disease. Gordon Brown (and the rest of us) should be hoping that the rapid response to the current outbreak will ensure he doesn't need to do the same. Given the ongoing commitment of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not clear how the Army would be able to respond.