Europe’s foot and mouth disease outbreak was foreseeable and preventable

By Paul Mitchell
8 March 2001

출처 : http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/fmd-m08.shtml

New outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD) continue to be recorded daily in Britain. From the first case on February 21, the total has now reached 81, with instances reported in all parts of the country. At least 80,000 animals have been earmarked for slaughter, nearly eight times the original estimates.

With suspected cases in several European countries, the European Union has extended its ban on imports of any livestock, meat and milk products from Britain. Farms in France, Belgium and Germany have been ordered to destroy animals imported from the UK, or which have come into contact with such animals.

The epidemic of foot and mouth disease (FMD) is another example of the re-emergence of a disease once largely confined to more economically backward areas in Latin America, Asia and Africa, and practically eradicated from the advanced countries. The last major epidemic in Britain was in 1967. But last year saw outbreaks of the disease in Japan for the first time since 1908 and in South Korea—disease free since 1934.

Recognised as one of the most highly contagious diseases in animals, the virus rarely affects humans, but causes painful blisters around the mouth, nose, feet and teats of pigs, cattle and sheep. Most animals recover from the disease and its major impact is economic, with reduced milk yields and weight gain, abortions and the death of young animals.

International animal health bodies have existed for decades, but it is has been left up to national governments to decide if, or how, to implement controls. The resulting piecemeal approach has hampered the global eradication of the disease and the anarchic operation of global markets in animals and food products have made matters worse. According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) “the movement of people, animals and animal products for trade is leading to an increased spread of animal diseases across national borders”.

Where the disease has been controlled, individual governments have generally first quarantined the affected area, with any animals showing signs of the disease being destroyed, and carried out vaccination programs in a wider area. Measures are then put in place to prevent infected animals or meat products entering the area.

Although vaccines against FMD have existed for some 50 years, there are certain problems with relying purely on vaccination to combat the virus. The disease exists as seven different types, and immunity against one type does not guarantee immunity against another. Scientists have found that up to half of all vaccinated cattle can still carry the virus, and it is difficult to tell a vaccinated animal from one incubating the disease. The vaccine itself is sometimes unsafe and has caused outbreaks on occasions. Nevertheless, according to the FAO, in Europe, “the introduction of compulsory, mass, annual vaccination of cattle [during the 1950s and 1960s] dramatically reduced the incidence of the disease such that during 1990 no outbreaks were recorded.”

Within two years, however, the routine vaccination of animals against FMD in the European Union was banned. To understand why requires an understanding of FMD in Britain.

Whilst European countries have carried out extensive vaccination programmes, the UK has never done so. The measures employed to deal with FMD in Britain have changed little in 100 years. Until the end of the nineteenth century, because FMD was not fatal to adult animals, farmers put up with it. But then, under pressure from rich, aristocratic cattle breeders, the government brought in controls. At the time, Britain exported industrial goods and imported agricultural ones. The export of pedigree cattle for breeding purposes was one of Britain’s few agricultural exports until after the Second World War. The government first imposed a policy of slaughtering all infected cattle, but exempted breeding stock. The cattle breeders also pushed for bans on imports from infected countries that had to eradicate the disease or lose their export market to the UK.

After the war, Britain turned to a policy of agricultural self-sufficiency and exports, with countries importing British animals and meat demanding it be FMD free. Most European countries, where the disease was very widespread, started using vaccines in 1952 as an alternative to slaughtering their national herds. Britain continued to promote its mass slaughter policy through the European Commission for Foot and Mouth Disease (ECFMD) that it helped to set up in 1954.

In 1985, the European Union (EU) had issued a Directive relating to FMD control that was weighted in favour of compulsory vaccination, but it was amended significantly in 1990. In order to establish the Single European Market by 1993, the EU sought to introduce a uniform policy. Mass slaughter was regarded as preferable to vaccination because outbreaks of FMD were resulting from faulty vaccines that contained virus that had not been inactivated. Disease-free status was vital for international trade, and it has proved difficult to distinguish between vaccinated animals and those that are incubating the disease.

Paul Pilotte, a Belgian veterinary inspector says, “it was the English who pushed for abolishing Europe’s foot and mouth vaccination programme and look where we are now. The English only value their land in order to extract profit from it and agriculture there has become an industry.” The first half of this somewhat xenophobic statement is true, but the EU as a whole went along with Britain—with the new policy relying on import restrictions and border checks. An ECFMD report justified this decision, arguing that “By 1992 Europe was free of the disease and decided to stop the costly annual mass vaccination campaigns.”

The mood at that time, described by some observers as “self congratulatory,” was short lived.

In 1997 the EU reported that as a result of the move to mass slaughter rather than vaccination since 1991, “a fully susceptible farm animal population prevails at present in the EU countries, potentially threatened by border countries where the disease is enzootic [very widespread]. The disease currently represents a constant threat to Europe, as witnessed over the last 12 months in the Balkans, with the outbreaks in Italy (1993) and Greece (1994) supporting this concern about disease re-introduction in Europe.”

A European Commission visit to the Confederation of Independent States (CIS-the former USSR) in 1998 reported, “No one from the central competent authorities was able to accompany the mission due to lack of funds,” where staff had not been paid for months. The annual herd vaccination carried out in the USSR stopped in 1991 when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Moreover, the collapse of the USSR, local wars in several of its constituent parts and privatisation of much of the state sector has decimated veterinary services across the massive landmass of the former Soviet Union. As a result, for example, Georgia had gone from virtually no FMD outbreaks in the 1980s to 32 outbreaks in 1997.

The US-led war against Iraq in 1991 also produced a rise in FMD, with several outbreaks recorded in 1999. As the FAO warned, “The animal disease situation in Iraq has been aggravated by the collapse of the veterinary infrastructure and disease investigation, surveillance and diagnostic services in the country. The government has been unable to adequately monitor and control the spread of these diseases, partly because of the difficulties it has in obtaining equipment and supplies, particularly vaccines.”

Within Europe, the FAO warns that the creation of a single market, where animals are often transported long distances, increases the risk of diseases spreading. Typically, pigs remain four weeks in a breeding unit, seven weeks in a rearing unit and ten weeks in a fattening unit, often hundreds of kilometres apart, before going for slaughter. As well as these increased risks, the “institutional coherence” of many veterinary services “is being destroyed by the drive to reduce [the] public sector … and the fragmentation of services caused by delegation of power from national to regional levels” says the FAO.

Cuts carried out in Britain’s state veterinary services over the last ten years mean there are only half the number of regional animal health offices, with a fifth fewer vets.

Some commentators have sought to put the blame for the spread of FMD and other animal diseases on “globalisation” and the increased application of science and technology in agriculture. In contrast, the FAO’s senior officer for emergency prevention and infectious diseases, Mark Rweyemamu, says, “In terms of technology, we should be able to avoid such a catastrophe. We have the tools. The system for quick response and containment is much improved, provided those concerned are sufficiently alerted.”

“In an increasingly globalised world veterinary surveillance systems and services are vital to detect these diseases early enough and to prepare contingency plans to contain those outbreaks. Veterinary services should not be considered as a luxury—they must be supported to avoid future disasters,” he continued.

Moreover, as Abigail Woods, a qualified vet currently undertaking a PhD study on the history of animal plagues, points out, “Changing farming practices have long been blamed for FMD introduction and spread, including the use of manufactured, non-organic feedstuffs. In addition, long distance transport of livestock is nothing new… The movement away from local breeding, rearing, fattening, slaughter and marketing of livestock began over 150 years ago with the industrial revolution.” (See WSWS interview with Abigail Woods)

The advances in agricultural productivity associated with the rise of capitalism were also necessary to provide a more reliable and abundant source of food for the mass of workers required in the factories and offices. However, like any other commodity, the production of food is subordinated to the profit interests of the corporate elite. Public safety and animal welfare come a poor second to the drive for rising profits and the intense competition this unleashes.

Faced with the collapse in Korea’s meat exports to Japan because of FMD, American agribusiness saw an opportunity to promote its own interests. “The longer it takes Korea to regain FMD free status the more time US pork suppliers will have to increase market share in Japan,” was the conclusion reached by the United States Department of Agriculture last year in its report entitled Bottom Line: Impact on US trade.

Implementing small-scale local agricultural production and wholly organic methods, as advocated by those like the Greens, would mean a return to pre-industrial population levels.

The real question is to release the potential benefits of globalisation and scientific farming methods from their present subordination to anarchic market forces and the narrow pursuit of profit.

정부, 구제역으로 첫 중앙재난대책본부 구성

 구제역 위기경보 `심각’ 단계로 격상

백신지역 12개 시군으로..방역능력 한계달한듯

출처 : 연합뉴스 | 입력 2010.12.29 10:07 | 수정 2010.12.29 10:43

(서울=연합뉴스) 이강원 기자 = 정부는 지난달말 경북 안동에서 시작된 구제역이 5개 시도로 확산됨에 따라 범정부 차원의 `중앙재난안전대책본부’를 구성하기로 했다.

또 구제역 경보단계도 최고 수준인 `심각’ 단계로 높이기로 했다.

정부는 29일 오전 중앙청사에서 맹형규 행정안전부 장관, 유정복 농림수산식품부 장관 등이 참석한 가운데 구제역 관계기관 대책회의를 열어 이같이 정하고, 정부 차원의 합동 담화문을 발표했다.

정부의 위기대응 경보가 심각 단계로 높아진 것은 지난해 신종플루가 확산될 때가 처음이지만, 가축전염병으로 심각 경보가 내려진 것은 이번이 처음이다.

이에 따라 정부는 행안부.농식품부 등이 참여한 중앙재난안전대책본부를 구성, 중앙 및 지방 정부의 공무원은 물론 경찰력까지 동원해 구제역 방역에 나서게 된다.

또 정부는 이날 시.도지사 영상회의를 열어 구제역이 발생하지 않은 지방자치단체들도 방역체계를 갖추도록 하는 등 전국이 구제역 방역체제로 전환했다.

앞서 정부는 지난 28일 구제역이 충청 지역에서 처음으로 발생, 5개 시.도로 확산되자 빠르면 29일부터 충주를 포함해 인천 강화, 경기 양주.포천 지역에도 예방백신을 접종하기로 했다.

충주는 지난 4월 구제역이 한차례 발생했던 곳이다. 이로써 이번 구제역은 5개 시도, 29개 시군, 65곳으로 늘어났고, 예방백신 접종지역도 12개 시.군으로 넓어졌다.

접종 대상은 인천 강화는 전지역, 나머지 지역은 주요 발생농가를 중심으로 반경 10km내에 사육되고 있는 소다.

지역별로는 ▲포천 602농가 2만4천843마리 ▲양주 450농가 2만1천424마리 ▲강화 530농가 1만8천148마리 ▲충주 55농가 1천61마리다. 이에 따라 백신 접종대상은 경북.경기의 8개 시군을 포함해 8천724농가 23만6천494마리로 늘었다.

하지만 지난 25일 처음 시작된 백신접종의 대상 지역이 점차 늘어나는 등 당국의 방역 대처능력이 한계에 이른 것 아니냐는 우려가 서서히 나오고 있다.

특히 이번 구제역에 대해 방역당국이 아직까지 원인은 물론 전파경로를 명확하게 규명하지 못한 상태여서 이대로 가면 전국이 구제역에 감염되는 것은 시간문제라는 지적도 나오고 있다.

이와 관련, 최근 경기 여주와 이천에서 검출된 구제역 바이러스가 생성 이후 최소 1∼2주 뒤에야 나타나는 `항체양성’ 반응을 보여, 상당수 바이러스가 이미 인근 지역으로 확산됐을 개연성도 높아지고 있다.

이번 구제역이 충청 지역을 넘어 인근 호남 지역 등으로 퍼지면 그에 따라 추가 접종대상 지역도 늘어날 것으로 보인다. 이번 구제역으로 이날까지 2천236농가의 52만3천518마리가 살처분.매몰됐다.

gija007@yna.co.kr

(끝)

`예방접종’ 불구..구제역 확산 조짐

젖소산지 경기 남부마저 구제역 확산 태세

인천 서구에서도 돼지 구제역 의심시고

출처 : 연합뉴스 | 입력 2010.12.26 16:27 | 수정 2010.12.26 17:01

(서울=연합뉴스) 이강원 기자 = 국내 젖소의 40%가량을 사육하고 있는 경기 남부지역의 한 곳인 여주에서도 26일 구제역이 발생했다.

농림수산식품부는 26일 “경기 여주군 가남면 안금리 한우농장에서 구제역이 확인됐다”면서 “이 농장은 한우 140마리를 기르고 있다”고 밝혔다.

경기도는 전국 대비 육우는 10%, 젖소는 40%, 돼지는 20%가량 사육되고 있고, 여주가 속한 경기 남부지역에서만 도내 사육 가축의 70%가량이 사육되고 있다.

이런 가운데 지난 25일에는 경기 여주군 북내면 소재 한 돼지농장에서 구제역 의심증상이 발견돼 예방적 차원에서 돼지들을 살처분.매몰한데 이어 이날 여주에서 인접한 이천시 대월면 장평리의 한 돼지농장에서도 의심증상이 나타나 살처분.매몰 조치가 잇따르는등 경기 남부의 구제역도 확산 조짐을 보이고 있다.

또 이날 인천 서구 오류동의 대규모 돼지농장에서도 구제역 의심신고가 접수됐다.

이로써 이번 구제역이 4개 시도, 23개 시군, 57곳으로 늘어나면서 1천963농가의 42만4천827마리가 살처분.매몰되는 등 피해도 눈덩이처럼 불어나고 있다.

앞서 정부는 지난 25일 오전부터 경북의 안동과 예천, 경기의 파주.고양.연천 등 5개 지역의 한우를 대상으로 예방백신을 접종했다.

접종대상은 ▲안동 1천446농가 1만7천마리 ▲예천 4천106농가 4만7천마리 ▲연천 396농가 1만8천마리 ▲파주 723농가 3만1천마리 ▲고양 345농가 2만마리로 모두 7천16농가의 한우 13만3천여마리에 달한다.

하지만 24일부터 계속된 맹추위로 일부 지역에서는 기온이 오르는 낮시간을 이용해 접종하는 등 추위로 인해 접종작업이 일부 차질을 빚기도 했다.

하지만 정부는 구제역이 확산되는 것을 막기 위해 10일내 접종을 끝낸다는 당초 계획을 앞당겨 향후 3∼4일내에 접종을 완료할 방침이다.

접종 작업을 총괄하고 있는 국립수의과학검역원 주이석 질병관리부장은 “구제역 확산을 막기 위해 1차 접종기간을 당초 10일내에서 3∼4일내로 줄일 계획”이라고 말했다.

접종뒤 정밀검사를 거쳐 구제역에 걸리지 않았다고 확인되면 도축장 출하 및 거래가 가능하며, 마지막 예방접종 또는 구제역 발생 뒤 2주뒤부터 정밀검사가 시작된다.

정부는 접종 대상 이외 지역에 대해선 종전대로 살처분.매몰 방식으로 대처하되 강원 및 경기 남부 지역의 구제역 확산 추세에 따라 추가 접종 여부를 검토할 방침이다.

gija007@yna.co.kr

(끝)

<여주.이천.양평 구제역백신접종 신속결정 배경은>

연합뉴스 | 입력 2010.12.26 18:28 | 수정 2010.12.26 18:39

(수원=연합뉴스) 최찬흥 기자 = 정부가 경기도 여주군의 한우.돼지농가의 구제역 확진 판정이 난 26일 여주와 인근 이천.양평 등 3개 시.군에 대한 예방 백신 접종을 곧바로 결정했다.

이례적으로 신속한 접종 방침은 이들 지역이 축산단지로서 갖는 지리적 특수성에 따른 것으로 풀이된다.

이날 구제역이 확인된 여주군 북내면 석우리 S 돼지농장과 가남면 안금리 김모씨의 한우농장 반경 10㎞내 경계지역에는 양평과 이천의 농가가 포함되고 이들 농가의 한우와 젖소가 백신 접종 대상이다.

이들 지역에서는 이천 533농가 3만565마리, 여주 851농가 2만1천687마리, 양평 276농가 3천727마리 등 1천660농가에서 모두 5만5천979마리의 한우와 젖소를 키우고 있다.

3개 시.군 전체적으로 10만3천여마리로 경기남부지역의 30% 가량을 차지한다.

경기도 구제역방역대책본부 관계자는 “여주.이천.양평이 대규모 축산단지로 이곳의 방역망이 뚫려 용인.광주.안성.평택 등 경기남부 지역으로 구제역이 확산될 경우 그 피해는 감당하기 어려울 것”이라며 “정부의 신속한 결정은 이런 점을 감안한 것으로 보인다”고 말했다.

도 구제역방역대책본부는 교육을 거쳐 10개팀 90명의 방역요원을 투입해 27일 오후께부터 예방 접종을 시작할 계획이다. 접종에는 4∼5일이 소요될 전망이다.

지난달 29일 경북 영천을 시작으로 이날까지 구제역이 발생한 곳은 4개 시도, 23개 시.군으로 정부는 지난 25일 오전부터 경북의 안동과 예천, 경기의 파주.고양.연천 등 5개 시.군의 한우를 대상으로 예방백신 접종을 시작했다.

chan@yna.co.kr

(끝)