혈액질환 일으켜 발열·구토 동반
아직 바이러스 감염 사례는 없어

Ten Great Public Health Achievements — Worldwide, 2001–2010

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)

Worldwide, a child born in 1955 had an average life expectancy at birth of only 48 years (1). By 2000, the average life expectancy at birth had increased to 66 years and, if past trends continue, is projected to rise to 73 years by 2025 (1). These improvements in longevity have resulted from improved living conditions overall, advances in medical science, and a number of population-level interventions. However, major disparities persist. During the past decade, in low-income countries, average life expectancy at birth increased from 55 to 57 years (3.6%), while increasing from 78 to 80 years (2.6%) in high-income countries (2). Analogous to the recent MMWR report highlighting 10 public health achievements that occurred in the United States over the first 10 years of the new century, this report describes global public health achievements during the same period (3). Experts in global public health were asked to nominate noteworthy public health achievements that occurred outside of the United States during 2001–2010. From them, 10 have been summarized in this report. As with the previous report, the 10 global public health achievements are not ranked in any order. Additional information regarding these achievements is available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6019a5_addinfo.htm.

Reductions in Child Mortality

Child mortality, a key measurement of United Nations Millennium Development Goal 4, is defined as deaths in children aged <5 years and serves as a major indicator of a nation's health and development, tracking health services and outcomes as well as important social and economic indicators. Currently, an estimated 8.1 million children die each year before reaching their fifth birthday, a decrease of approximately 2 million during the past decade. From 77 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2000, the child mortality rate declined to 62 per 1,000 in 2009. The annual rate of decline in the child mortality rate has increased substantially, from 1.3% per year in the 1990s to 2.2% since 2000. Approximately 99% of all childhood deaths occur in low-income and middle-income countries, with 49% occurring in sub-Saharan Africa and 33% in southern Asia.

Approximately 68% of deaths among children aged <5 years are attributable to infectious diseases, most notably diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Undernutrition contributes to at least one third of all childhood deaths, usually in interaction with infectious causes. The vast majority of gains in child survival have been accomplished through scale-up of interventions such as immunization, micronutrient supplementation, access to safe water, insecticide-treated bednets, oral rehydration therapy, antibiotics, antimalarial therapy, and antiretroviral therapies. Increased financial resources, strong partnerships, intensified country support, and innovations in service delivery approaches have made these gains possible. Because of the success in reducing the number of deaths caused by infection, 41% of childhood deaths now occur among neonates; leading causes of neonatal death are preterm birth complications, birth asphyxia, and sepsis (4).

Vaccine-Preventable Diseases

Expanded vaccination coverage is one of the most cost-effective ways to advance global welfare (5). In the first decade of the 21st century, an estimated 2.5 million deaths were prevented each year among children aged <5 years through the use of measles, polio, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines. Expanded coverage with measles vaccine resulted in a 78% decline in measles mortality from 2000 to 2008, averting an estimated 12.7 million deaths. Polio eradication efforts decreased the number of countries with endemic disease from 20 to four, with fewer than 1,500 cases reported in 2010. Global coverage with the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (a performance measure for vaccination programs) increased from 74% to 82%. Newer vaccines, including hepatitis B vaccine and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccine also are now widely used in national immunization programs globally. The number of countries using hepatitis B vaccine increased from 107 in 2000, to 178 in 2009; with global vaccination coverage of 70% achieved by the end of the decade, at least 700,000 deaths from cirrhosis and liver cancer are expected to be averted in each annual birth cohort in these 178 countries. During 2000–2009, the number of countries using Hib vaccine worldwide increased from 62 to 161; the resulting global coverage of 38% prevented an estimated 130,000 pneumonia and meningitis deaths annually among children aged <5 years.

Studies of disease burden and vaccine efficacy and creation of innovative financing mechanisms accelerated development and use in developing countries of vaccines licensed during the decade. As a result, new and underutilized vaccines for global use (i.e., pneumococcal conjugate [PCV], rotavirus, and rubella vaccines), and vaccines recommended for introduction in certain regions or in countries where certain criteria are met (e.g., Japanese encephalitis, human papillomavirus, meningococcal group A conjugate, and typhoid vaccines) are expected to be available around the world much more quickly than they have been in the past. By the end of 2009, 44 countries had introduced PCV (11% of the global birth cohort), 23 had introduced rotavirus vaccine (11% of the global birth cohort), and 130 had introduced rubella vaccine (42% of the global birth cohort). Substantial work remains for these vaccines to be more widely introduced in developing countries.

Access to Safe Water and Sanitation

Water-related diseases, principally the 2.5 billion cases of diarrhea that occur annually, are the second leading cause of childhood mortality worldwide (6). Diarrhea, almost 90% of which is related to inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), kills 1.5 million children aged <5 years annually, more children than AIDS, malaria, and measles combined (6). From 2000 to 2008, the world’s population increased from 6.1 billion to 6.7 billion, while the proportion of the world’s population with access to improved drinking water sources increased from 83% to 87% (covering an additional 800 million persons), and the proportion with access to improved sanitation increased from 58% to 61% (covering an additional 570 million persons) (7). These gains were made through WASH initiatives to increase water and sanitation coverage and promote hygienic behaviors (e.g., handwashing), as well as through maintaining existing services.

During the previous century, in Europe, North America, and Japan, drinking water treatment virtually eliminated waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid (8,9). More recently, although improved WASH access has resulted in significant progress in controlling water-related disease in certain countries (e.g., Mexico and Chile), neglect of WASH infrastructure has contributed to large, deadly, waterborne outbreaks in others (e.g., cholera in Zimbabwe) (10). Continued improvements in global WASH coverage require intensifying current efforts, including long-term, multisectoral commitment to constructing and maintaining water and sanitation systems, behavior change promotion, and WASH-related disease surveillance.

Malaria Prevention and Control

Malaria is the fifth leading cause of death from infectious disease worldwide and the second leading cause in Africa, after human immunodeficiency virus/(HIV)/AIDS (11). The Roll Back Malaria partnership launched in 1998 is a coordinated response to malaria (additional information available at http://www.rollbackmalaria.org). During 2003–2010, financial assistance to malaria-endemic countries increased from approximately $100 million annually to nearly $1.8 billion annually, enabling increased coverage with insecticide-treated bednets, indoor residual spraying, rapid diagnosis and prompt treatment with artemisinin combination therapy, and intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy (12). As a result, in sub-Saharan Africa, household ownership of insecticide-treated bednets increased from 3% in 2000 to 42% in 2009, protecting approximately 75% of the at-risk population. Protection with indoor residual spraying increased from 13 million households in 2005 to 75 million in 2009. Over the course of the past decade, the estimated number of malaria cases worldwide peaked at 244 million in 2005 but declined to 225 million in 2009. This decline was associated with a 21% decrease in estimated global malaria deaths, from approximately 985,000 in 2000 to 781,000 in 2009.

Prevention and Control of HIV/AIDS

The HIV epidemic continues to be a major global health challenge, with an estimated 33.3 million persons living with HIV at the end of 2009, compared with 28.6 million in 2001 (13). In 2009, 68% of persons living with HIV (22.5 million) were in sub-Saharan Africa (13). Despite this increase, the number of new infections annually has declined from an estimated 3.1 million in 2001 to 2.6 million in 2009. A decline also has been observed in the estimated number of AIDS-related deaths worldwide, from a peak of 2.1 million in 2004 to an estimated 1.8 million deaths in 2009 (13). Public health interventions possibly contributing to decreasing global HIV incidence have included the expansion of programs for provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission, which covered an estimated 53% of pregnancies in HIV-positive mothers in 2009 (14), expanded availability and use of condoms and sterile injection equipment, improved blood safety, and antiretroviral therapy (ART). The scale-up of these interventions, including the provision of ART to 5.25 million persons in low-income and middle-income countries in 2009, has been concurrent with the decline in mortality (15). By averting new infections and offering improved health and longer lives to those already infected, these programs have enabled millions to contribute productively to families, communities, and economies.

Tuberculosis Control

During the past decade, 81 million new tuberculosis (TB) cases and 10 million deaths from TB occurred, largely in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia (16). In 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its directly observed therapy, short-course (DOTS) strategy for TB control, focusing on finding and successfully treating TB cases with standardized regimens and rigorous treatment and program monitoring (16,17). Since 1995, DOTS has resulted in 41 million cases cured and 6 million deaths prevented (16). Since 2000, case detection and treatment success rates each have risen nearly 20%, with incidence and prevalence declining in every region. The world is on track to reduce TB mortality to 50% of 1990 levels by 2015 (16). DOTS also is cost effective: in sub-Saharan Africa, implementation of DOTS at a cost of $12 billion (U.S.) would produce $129 billion in economic benefits to the region in 10 years (18).

Despite these successes, HIV-related and multidrug-resistant TB threaten to undermine progress, and TB incidence is declining, but slowly. HIV infection is the primary reason for failure to meet TB control targets in settings with high HIV prevalence, and TB is a major cause of death among persons living with HIV/AIDS. Interventions such as initiation of antiretroviral therapy in TB patients coinfected with HIV can decrease mortality. To address the threat of multidrug-resistant TB, DOTS-Plus strategies, which incorporate practical steps to improve infection control and special guidance on use and quality control of second-line drugs, have been implemented in countries with a high prevalence of this disease (18).

Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases

Neglected tropical diseases affect approximately 1 billion persons worldwide. Three of these diseases have been targeted for elimination or eradication: dracunculiasis (Guinea worm disease), onchocerciasis (river blindness) in the Americas, and lymphatic filariasis. Of these programs, those targeting dracunculiasis and onchocerciasis in the Americas are on the verge of success. In 1986, an estimated 3.5 million cases of dracunculiasis occurred in 20 countries. Using filters, safe water sources, larvicide, and most importantly, health education to encourage water filtration and prevention of water contamination, dracunculiasis transmission has been interrupted in all but four countries (Southern Sudan, Mali, Ethiopia, and Ghana), with most remaining cases in Southern Sudan. With only 1,797 cases reported in 2010, including 10 cases from an outbreak in Chad, the goal of eradication in 2012 is within reach.

The Onchocerciasis Elimination Program in the Americas began in 1992 to use mass drug administration to reduce blindness from onchocerciasis among the 500,000 persons at risk in six countries. By 2010, new cases of onchocercal blindness were eliminated in all 13 regional foci, and Onchocerca volvulus transmission was interrupted completely in eight of these. The goal is to eliminate transmission in all foci in the Americas by 2012.

In 2000, 1.34 billion persons in 72 countries were at risk for lymphatic filariasis and required mass drug administration, and 120 million were infected. With elimination targeted for 2020, the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis, begun in 2000, has delivered approximately 3 billion courses of antifilarial treatment at a cost of $0.05–$0.50 per person. Nine of the 72 countries have reached the WHO target for stopping mass drug administration. During 2000–2007, the program prevented infection in an estimated 6.6 million newborns, prevented disease in 9.5 million persons, and averted 32 million disability-adjusted life years.

Tobacco Control

In 2000, 4.8 million premature deaths were attributable to tobacco use (19). By the end of the decade, that number had risen to 5.4 million (20). In 2003, commitments were made through the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), WHO’s first global health treaty, which was adopted by 168 countries by 2010 (21) and four more by June 2011. In addition, WHO developed a package of strategies called MPOWER (monitor tobacco use, protect from tobacco smoke, offer help to quit, warn about the dangers, enforce marketing bans, and raise taxes on tobacco) to support WHO FCTC (20). By 2010, 163 countries had completed youth surveys, and 14 had completed adult surveys as part of the Global Tobacco Surveillance System (22). Survey findings enable countries to track tobacco use and respond with interventions such as price increases; smoke-free policies; bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship; and tobacco-related health information provided via mass media campaigns and graphic health warnings (20).

Smoke-free environments, a component of WHO FCTC and MPOWER, protect persons from tobacco smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General’s report conclusion that no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke exists (23) and studies showing that smoke-free laws do not harm businesses have heightened worldwide interest in smoke-free policies. By the end of the decade, about half of the world’s population was protected in health-care and educational facilities, although only about 5% of persons were protected by laws encompassing all public places (24). The total global population covered by comprehensive smoke-free laws increased from 3.1% in 2007 to 5.4% in 2008, providing protection for an additional 154 million persons (24).

Increased Awareness and Response for Improving Global Road Safety

Since 2000, when the International Federation of the Red Cross International Disasters Report raised an alarm regarding the worldwide impact of road traffic injuries, significant progress has been made in establishing a global response strategy (25,26). In 2001, WHO launched a 5-year plan to improve global road safety; in 2004, along with the World Bank, WHO issued the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention (26). From 2001 to 2009, the number of annual traffic-related fatalities in the European Union declined 36%, from 55,700 to 34,900 (27). The largest declines in the traffic-related mortality rates from 2000 to 2009 were observed in Spain and Portugal; rates decreased 59.2% in Spain, from 14.5 deaths per 100,000 population to 5.9, and 47% in Portugal, from 12.9 to 6.8 (28).

Despite such advances in road safety in developed countries, approximately 1.3 million persons die on the world’s roads each year (3,000 every day), and this number is projected to double by 2030. Much of the projected worldwide increase is expected to come from low-income and middle income countries, which already account for 90% of global road deaths despite having less than half of the world’s vehicles, and where the number of autos in use in rapidly emerging economies is expected to expand sixfold by 2018, potentially without corresponding improvements in road infrastructure or traffic safety. The Commission for Global Road Safety issued recommendations in 2006 and 2010, further raising the profile of global road traffic injuries and culminating in 2009 with adoption of a United Nations General Assembly resolution proclaiming the period 2011–2020 as the Decade of Action for Road Safety (29,30). The resolution established a 2020 goal of stabilizing and then reducing the forecasted growth of road traffic fatalities around the world by increasing road safety activities, including improved road and vehicle design, speed control, seat belt and helmet use, improved public transport, reduced alcohol-impaired driving, and more effective care of the injured at the national, regional, and global levels. If this goal is achieved, over the decade it could save 5 million lives and $3 trillion and prevent 50 million serious injuries.

Improved Preparedness and Response to Global Health Threats

Pandemic diseases and emerging diseases such as AIDS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and influenza continue to cause fear, economic instability, severe illness, and premature death. In the past decade, the public health community has improved preparedness for and detection of pandemic threats and is now responding more effectively than before. The 2005 International Health Regulations, which entered into force in 2007, have modernized the international legal framework to improve systematic preparedness and response to pandemic and other emerging public health threats. Use of the Internet and other media for public health surveillance has expanded, and the Global Public Health Information Network, CDC’s Global Disease Detection Operations Center (GDDOC), additional international influenza response networks, and other systems routinely detect and respond to clusters of unusual disease earlier than traditional surveillance. Laboratory and epidemiologic capacity also has improved. For example, since 2006, GDDOC worked with ministries of health to add availability of 185 new diagnostic tests in 59 countries, enabling these countries to conduct tests for pathogens they could not previously perform. Since 2000, a total of 21 new Field Epidemiology Training Programs have been established, three of which are now self-sustained. From 2000 to 2010, these new programs graduated approximately 500 epidemiologists. Cooperative agreements with ministries of health, regional training conducted in collaboration with WHO and other international organizations, and vital public health work to reduce transmission at the animal-human interface also have contributed to reducing the risk of influenza pandemics.

As a result of these and other efforts, the global response to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, which affected more than 214 countries and territories, was the most rapid and effective response to an influenza pandemic in history. The pandemic virus was rapidly identified and characterized. Epidemiologic investigations were conducted to characterize the severity and risk groups, and surveillance data were used to estimate the burden of disease and guide the response in real time. Within weeks of detecting the pandemic virus, diagnostic reagents were provided to laboratories in 146 countries, and laboratory and clinical training was provided, in collaboration with partners, to more than 6,100 health professionals in 34 countries. A vaccine was developed within 20 weeks of virus detection, and through an international donation program, made available to 86 countries. The lessons and experiences of the 2009 H1N1 response continue to inform preparedness efforts for future influenza pandemics as well as future public health emergencies.

Conclusion

During the previous century, great progress was made in raising life expectancy and reducing mortality among infants and young children through improvements in living conditions and activities to combat major infectious causes of death. Collectively, interventions such as those described in this report have contributed to the shifts in major causes of death observed in the new century, with chronic, noninfectious causes increasingly prevalent not only in affluent countries, but also in lower-income and middle-income countries. Noncommunicable diseases and health conditions are expected to account for an estimated 75% of all deaths worldwide by the year 2030 (31). The achievements described in this report demonstrate the capacity of public health agencies to harness and adapt the scientific, technical, legal, and political resources necessary to respond effectively to the problems at hand. This capacity will be tested in the years ahead as public health agencies continue to address communicable diseases while responding to the increasing prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and other noncommunicable conditions and injuries that will require innovative responses to ensure significant public health achievements in the future.

Reported by

Global Public Health Achievements Team, CDC. Corresponding contributor: Ram Koppaka, MD, PhD, Epidemiology and Analysis Program Office, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Svcs, CDC; rkoppaka@cdc.gov, 347-396-2847.

References

1. World Health Organization. The world health report 1998—life in the 21st century: a vision for all. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1998. Available at http://www.who.int/whr/1998/en/whr98_en.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
   
2. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2010. Geneva, Switzerland; 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS10_Full.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
   
3. CDC. Ten great public health achievements—United States, 2001–2010. MMWR 2011;60:619–23.
   
4. You D, Jones G, Wardlaw T. Levels and trends in child mortality: estimates developed by the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. New York, NY: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); 2010.
   
5. Copenhagen Consensus Center. Copenhagen consensus 2008. Fredriksberg, Denmark: Copenhagen Consensus Center; 2008. Available at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/home.aspx. Accessed June 17, 2011.
   
6. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization. Diarrhoea: why children are still dying and what can be done. Geneva, Switzerland: UNICEF/World Health Organization; 2009. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241598415_eng.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
   
7. World Health Organization/The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Progress on sanitation and drinking-water: 2010 update. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization/UNICEF; 2010.
   
8. Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare. A 50-year history of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Japan: Editorial Board of the Fifty-Year History of the Ministry of Health and Welfare; 1988.
   
9. Cutler D, Miller G. The role of public health improvements in health advances: the twentieth-century United States. Demography 2005;42:1–22.
   
10. Sepulveda J, Valdespino JL, Garcia-Garcia L. Cholera in Mexico: the paradoxical benefits of the last pandemic. Int J Infect Dis 2006;10:4–13.
    
11. World Health Organization. Global burden of disease estimates. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002.
    
12. World Health Organization. World malaria report, 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/malaria/world_malaria_report_2010/en/index.html. Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
13. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Global report: UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS; 2010. Available at http://www.unaids.org/globalreport/global_report.htm. Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
14. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Countdown to zero: global plan towards the elimination of new HIV infections among children by 2015 and keeping their mothers alive. Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS; 2011. Available at http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/unaidspublication/2011/20110609_jc2137_global-plan-elimination-hiv-children_en-1.pdf . Accessed June 20, 2011.
    
15. World Health Oranization. Towards universal access: Scaling up priority HIV/AIDS interventions in the health sector. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500395_eng.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
16. World Health Organization. WHO report 2010: global tuberculosis control. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en. Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
17. World Health Organization/Stop TB Partnership. The global plan to stop TB 2011–2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization/Stop TB Partnership; 2010. Available at http://www.stoptb.org/global/plan. Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
18. The World Bank. Economic benefit of tuberculosis control. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2007. Policy research working paper 4295.
    
19. Jha P, Chaloupka F, eds. Tobaco control in developing countries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.
    
20. World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008: the MPOWER package. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. Available at http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/2008/en/index.html. Accessed May 19, 2011.
    
21. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. Available at http://www.who.int/tobacco/wntd/2011/announcement/en/index.html. Accessed May 19, 2011.
    
22. CDC. Global youth tobacco surveillance, 2000–2007. MMWR 2008;57(No. SS-01).
    
23. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2006.
    
24. World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2009: implementing smoke-free environments. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009. Available at http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/2009/en/index.html. Accessed May 22, 2011.
    
25. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. World disasters report 2000. Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; 2000.
    
26. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet DA, et al. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
    
27. European Transport Safety Council. Road safety target in sight: making up for lost time. Brussels, Belgium: European Transport Safety Council; 2010. Available at http://www.etsc.eu/documents/ETSC%20PIN%20Report%202010.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
28. International Traffic Safety Data & Analysis Group. IRTAD road safety 2010. Available at http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/irtad/pdf/10irtadreport.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
29. Commission for Global Road Safety. Make roads safe: a new priority for sustainable development. London, UK: Commission for Global Road Safety; 2006. Available at http://www.makeroadssafe.org/publications/documents/mrs_report_2007.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
30. Commission for Global Road Safety. Make roads safe: a decade of action for road safety. London, UK: Commission for Global Road Safety; 2009. Available at http://www.makeroadssafe.org/publications/documents/decade_of_action_report_lr.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.
    
31. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2008. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008. Available at http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS08_Full.pdf . Accessed June 17, 2011.

구제역 종식(?)…재발 농장은 ‘여전히’ 골머리 앓아

재발 돼지농장에서 139마리 매몰
  
 ［메디컬투데이 고희정 기자］

출처 : 메디컬투데이 2011-03-22 16:36:23
http://www.mdtoday.co.kr/mdtoday/index.html?no=152377

구제역 발생 114일을 맞이한 가운데 뚜렷한 진정세를 보이고 있지만 일부 농장에서 재발하고 있다.

22일 농림수산식품부(이하 농식품부)에 따르면 구제역 매몰대상 마릿수는 21일 오전 8시 기준 347만9374마리에서 22일 오전 347만9513마리로 139마리 늘었으며 해당농장은 지난 2월에도 발생했던 곳이다.

재발한 농장이기 때문에 구제역 매물 가축 대상 중 농장수 추가 없이 돼지 139마리가 해당된 것이다.

지난 20일에는 구제역 살처분이 한 마리도 시행되지 않아 구제역이 완전히 종식된 게 아니냐는 기대를 낳기도 했다.

지난해 11월 구제역이 발생한 후 22일까지 살처분 된 가축 수는 모두 347만9513마리로 ▲소 3749농장 15만871마리 ▲돼지 2113농장 331만7864마리 ▲염소 232농장 7535마리 ▲ 사슴 156농장 3243마리 등이다.

농식품부은 지금까지 구제역 양성판정을 받은 건수는 모두 150건이며 2월25일 울산 울주군 돼지농장에서 구제역이 발생한 이후 더 이상 확산되지는 않다고 밝혔다.

하지만 이미 구제역이 발생한 지역으로부터 반경 10km이내 지역에서 구제역이 발생하더라도 신규발생으로 간주하지 않아 완전히 종식됐다고 볼 수 없다.

농식품부 관계자는 “구제역이 발생한 지역 10km이내에서 접수된 신고는 구제역 신규발생에 추가돼지 않는다”며 “이번에 살처분된 돼지 139마리의 농장은 충남홍성의 한 농장으로 지난 2월에도 발생했던 농장이기 신규 건수가 늘어나지 않았다”고 설명했다.

한편 21일 기준 가축시장은 100%인 85개소가 폐쇄돼 지역축협 가축중개 매매센터 89개소를 개설해 전화 및 인터넷 중개 등을 통해 거래했으나 금일 거래실적은 ‘0마리’다.
 
메디컬투데이 고희정 기자(megmeg@mdtoday.co.kr)

“구제역 의심신고 접수때부터 통제”
英 농식품부와 간담회, 확진땐 최고경계 발령…살처분은 소각 처리

출처 : 농민신문  2011/03/23
http://www.nongmin.com/article/ar_detail.htm?ar_id=185262

　“영국에선 구제역 의심신고가 접수되면 확진 때까지 24시간 이동을 통제하고 살처분 보상금은 시가의 100%를 지급합니다.”

　영국 농식품환경부(DEFRA)는 2001년 양과 소·돼지 640여만마리를 살처분해 구제역을 종식한 이후 ‘위기조치계획’을 대폭 보완해 시행하고 있다고 밝혔다.

　농림수산식품부는 18일 영국 농식품환경부 마틴 윌리엄스 축산물정책팀장·컬린 파텔 수의과학 자문관과 간담회를 갖고 구제역 이후 영국의 초기 대응과 보상·백신정책 등 방역체계 전반에 대해 의견을 나눴다.

　주목할 점은 영국의 구제역 초기 대응. 이들은 영국에서 구제역 의심증상이 신고되면 곧바로 샘플을 표준실험실에 보내고 확진될 때까지 임시 통제지역을 반경 10㎞로 설정하고 24시간 이동을 제한한다고 전했다.

　특히 구제역으로 확진되면 확산 여부와 관계없이 최고 경계 수준인 ‘붉은색’ 단계를 발령한다. 더불어 영국의 방역체계는 정부와 민간업체가 효율적이고 전문적으로 연합조직(joint co-ordination)된 것이 특징이다. 방역체계를 총괄하는 장관 아래 국가질병관리센터(NDCC)가 있고, 그 밑에 연합관리센터(JCC)가 있으며, 지역에는 지방질병관리센터(LDCC)가 조직돼 효율적이고 전문적으로 활동한다.

　이와 함께 영국의 살처분 보상 정책은 농가가 어쩔 수 없이 피해를 입은 경우, 공기를 통해 또는 해외에서 바이러스가 옮았을 경우 등은 전액 보상한다. 보상금액의 절반은 EU 기금에서 환급 받는다. 다만 EU로부터 환급을 받으려면 감역축과 살처분 가축에 대한 통계와 질병 직무관리 시스템·가축 가격·마릿수 등의 정보를 제공해야 한다.

　2001년 구제역 발생 당시 축산물 위생 및 수출입 통제 등을 맡았던 컬린 파텔 수의과학 자문관은 “영국은 소를 우선 접종하고 방목하는 양이나 돼지는 살처분한다”며 “살처분 방식은 전문 소각시설에서 우선 처리하고 그 다음엔 랜더링을 하고, 마지막 수단으로 매몰한다”고 설명했다.

　박상규 기자 psgtobia@nongmin.com

2011년 구제역 발생 현황

< 1.9(일) 10:00 기준, 검역원 상황실, (T)031-467-4367, (F)031-467-4329>

* 구제역 발생지역 : 6개 시ㆍ도 50개 시ㆍ군으로 확대
* 매몰 대상 가축 : 3천305개 농장 128만2천345두, 이 중 105만7천939두(82.5%)가 살처분 후 매몰
*백신 접종 대상 가축 : 5만6천335개 농장 132만1천953두, 이 중 91만6천346두(69.3%) 접종 
* 경기, 인천, 충청, 강원 지역의 모든 소와 종돈ㆍ모돈에 구제역 예방백신을 접종하기로 결정
* 2만여명의 인력과 굴착기 등 장비 392대를 투입해 백신 접종과 살처분 등 방역을 하고 있으며 2천146개의 이동통제 초소를 세워 차단방역 실시 중

□ 신고 및 검사현황

(단위:건)

신 고 건 수	검 사 실 적
누계	양성	음성	검사중
148	108	40	0

  □ 구제역 신고 현황

일련번호	의뢰 (신고)일자	구 분	주 소	축종	검사결과		비고
					일자	결과
1	11.28.	1차 신고	경북 안동	돼지	11.29.	FMD양성(O형)	1차발생
2	11.29.	2차 신고 (1차에서 8km)	경북 안동	한우	11.29.	FMD양성(O형)	2차발생
3	11.30.	3차 신고 (1차에서 34km)	경북 영양	한우	12.01.	음성	-
4	12.01.	4차 신고 (1차에서 4km)	경북 안동	한우	12.02.	FMD양성(O형)	3차발생
5	12.01.	5차 신고 (1차에서 3.5km)	경북 안동	한우	12.02.	FMD양성(O형)	4차발생
6	12.01.	6차 신고 (1차에서 9.2m) (2차에서 2.5m)	경북 안동	한우	12.02.	FMD양성(O형)	5차발생
7	12.02.	7차 신고 (2차에서 19km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	음성	-
8	12.02	8차 신고 (2차 42km)	경북 청송	한우	12.03	음성	-
9	12.02	9차 신고 (2차 3.1km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	6차발생
10	12.02	10차 신고 (2차 1.8km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	7차발생
11	12.02	11차 신고 (2차 1.7km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	8차발생
12	12.02	12차 신고 (2차 1.9km)	경북 안동	돼지	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	9차발생
13	12.02	13차 신고 (2차 3.5km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	10차발생
14	12.02	14차 신고 (2차 6.2km)	경북 안동	염소,양,돼지	12.03	음성	-
15	12.02	15차 신고 (2차 3.9km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	11차발생
16	12.02	16차 신고 (2차 2.7km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	12차발생
17	12.02	17차 신고 (2차 3.9km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	13차발생
18	12.02	18차 신고 (2차 3.5km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	14차발생
19	12.02	19차 신고 (2차 1.4km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	15차발생
20	12.02	20차 신고 (2차 3.1km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	16차발생
21	12.02	21차 신고 (2차 3.2km)	경북 안동	한우	12.03	FMD양성(O형)	17차발생
22	12.03	22차 신고 (1차 13.6km)	경북 안동	돼지	12.04	FMD양성(O형)	18차발생
23	12.03	23차 신고 (1차 3.8km)	경북 안동	한우	12.04	FMD양성(O형)	19차발생
24	12.03	24차 신고 (1차 3.9km)	경북 안동	한우	12.04	FMD양성(O형)	20차발생
25	12.03	25차 신고 (1차 3.9km)	경북 안동	한우	12.04	음성
26	12.03	26차 신고 (1차 3.6km)	경북 안동	한우	12.04	FMD양성(O형)	21차발생
27	12.03	27차 신고 (1차 5km)	경북 안동	한우	12.04	FMD양성(O형)	22차발생
28	12.03	28차 신고 (1차 4.1km)	경북 안동	한우	12.05	음성
29	12.03	29차 신고 (1차4.4km)	경북 안동	한우	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	23차발생
30	12.03	30차 신고 (1차 4.1km)	경북 안동	한우	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	24차발생
31	12.03	31차 신고 (10차 11.1km)	경북 안동	한우	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	25차발생
32	12.03	32차 신고 (1차 4.5km)	경북 안동	한우	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	26차발생
33	12.03	33차 신고 (1차 5.2km)	경북 안동	한우	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	27차발생
34	12.04	34차 신고 (10차 20km)	경북 예천	한우	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	28차발생
35	12.04	35차 신고 (3차 12.3km)	경북 안동	한우	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	29차발생
36	12.04	36차 신고 (2차 3.6km)	경북 안동	돼지	12.05	FMD양성(O형)	30차발생
37	12.04	37차 신고 (1차 17.2km)	경북 영주	한우	12.05	음성
38	12.04	38차 신고 (6차 10.2km)	경북 영주	한우	12.05	음성
39	12.05	39차 신고 (2차 75km)	대구 북구	한우	12.06	음성
40	12.05	40차 신고 (1차 112km)	경북 청도	한우	12.06	음성
41	12.06	41차 신고 (1차 34.5km)	경북 의성	한우	12.07	음성
42	12.06	42차 신고 (1차 27.1km)	경북 영양	한우	12.07	FMD양성(O형)	31차 발생
43	12.07	43차 신고 (1차 110km)	경북 고령	한우	12.08	음성
44	12.08	44차 신고 (1차 87.1km)	경북 경주	한우	12.09	음성
45	12.10	45차 신고 (1차 16.8km)	경북 영주	한우	12.11	FMD양성(O형)	32차 발생
46	12.14	46차 신고 (1차 40.2km)	경북 의성	한우	12.14	음성
47	12.14	47차 신고 (1차 약200km)	경기 양주 경기 연천	돼지	12.15	FMD양성(O형)	33차 발생 (동일축주)
48	12.14	48차 신고 (1차 36.1km)	경북 예천	한우	12.15	FMD양성(O형)	34차 발생
49	12.15	49차 신고 (1차214km)	경기 파주	유우	15.16	FMD양성(O형)	35차 발생
50	12.15	50차 신고 (1차 50km)	경북 문경	한우	12.16	음성
51	12.15	51차 신고 (1차 61.5km)	경북 영덕	한우	12.16	음성
52	12.17	52차 신고 (1차 164km)	경기 남양주	한우	12.18	음성
53	12.18	53차 신고 (1차 215km)	경기 파주	한우	12.19	FMD양성(O형)	36차 발생
54	12.19	54차 신고 (1차 207km)	경기 고양	한우	12.20	양성	37차 발생
55	12.20	55차 신고 (1차 178km)	경기 가평	한우	12.21	양성	38차 발생
56	12.21	56차 신고 (1차 136km)	충남 천안	사슴	12.22	음성
57	12.21	57차 신고 (1차 102km)	강원 대화	한우	12.22	양성	39차 발생
58	12.21	58차 신고 (1차 208km)	경기 연천	돼지	12.22	양성	40차 발생
59	12.21	59차 신고 (1차 192km)	경기 포천	한우	12.22	양성	41차 발생
60	12.21	60차 신고 (1차 194km)	강원 화천	한우	12.22	양성	42차 발생
61	12.21	61차 신고 (1차 215km)	경기 김포	돼지	12.22	양성	43차 발생
62	12.21	62차 신고 (1차 210km)	경기 포천	한우	12.22	양성	44차 발생
63	12.22	63차 신고 (1차 157km)	강원 춘천	한우	12.22	양성	45차 발생
64	12.22	64차 신고 (1차 114km)	강원 원주	한우	12.22	양성	46차 발생
65	12.22	65차 신고 (1차 159km)	강원 양양	한우	12.23	음성
66	12.22	66차 신고 (1차 117km)	강원 횡성	한우	12.23	양성	47차 발생
67	12.22	67차 신고 (1차 117km)	강원 철원	한우	12.23	음성
68	12.23	68차 신고	인천 강화	돼지	12.24	양성	48차 발생
69	12.23	69차 신고	경북 군위	젖소	12.24	음성
70	12.23	70차 신고	강원 횡성	한우	12.24	음성
71	12.23	71차 신고	강원 강릉	돼지	12.24	음성
72	12.23	72차 신고	강원 원주	한우	12.24	음성
73	12.23	73차 신고	강원 횡성	한우	12.24	음성
74	12.23	74차 신고	강원 횡성	한우	12.24	양성	49차 발생
75	12.23	75차 신고	경북 영천	돼지	12.24	양성	50차 발생
76	12.23	76차 신고	강원 횡성	한우	12.24	양성	51차 발생
77	12.24	77차 신고	강원 철원	한우	12.25	양성	52차 발생
78	12.24	78차 신고	경북 경주	돼지	12.25	음성
79	12.25	79차 신고	경기 여주	한우	12.26	양성	53차 발생
80	12.26	80차 신고	인천 서구	돼지	12.27	양성	54차 발생
81	12.26	81차 신고	경북 청송	한우	12.27	양성	55차 발생
82	12.26	82차 신고	경기 양평	한우	12.27	양성	56차 발생
83	12.27	83차 신고	경북 성주	한우	12.28	음성
84	12.27	84차 신고	강원 춘천	한우	12.28	양성	57차 발생
85	12.27	85차 신고	강원 홍천	한우	12.28	양성	58차 발생
86	12.27	86차 신고	경북 영주	돼지	12.28	양성	59차 발생
87	12.27	87차 신고	대전 서구	한우	12.28	음성
88	12.27	88차 신고	강원 횡성	한우	12.28	양성	60차 발생
89	12.29	89차 신고	경기 광주	한우	12.30	음성
90	12.29	90차 신고	강원 홍천	돼지	12.30	양성	61차 발생
91	12.30	91차 신고	경북 영천	한우	12.31	양성	62차 발생
92	12.30	92차 신고	경북 경주	한우	12.31	양성	63차 발생
93	12.30	93차 신고	경기 남양주	한우	12.31	양성	64차 발생
94	12.30	94차 신고	강원 횡성	돼지	12.31	양성	65차 발생
95	12.31	95차 신고	경북 포항	한우	1.1	양성	66차 발생
96	12.31	96차 신고	강원 양구	한우	1.1	양성	67차 발생
97	1.1	97차 신고	충남 천안	젖소	1.2	양성	68차 발생
98	1.1	98차 신고	경북 영천	돼지	1.2	양성	69차 발생
99	1.1	99차 신고	경북 영천	한우	1.2	양성	70차 발생
100	1.1	100차 신고	경북 포항	한우	1.2	양성	71차 발생
101	1.1	101차 신고	경북 영천	한우	1.2	양성	72차 발생
102	1.1	102차 신고	강원 강릉	한우	1.2	양성	73차 발생
103	1.1	103차 신고	강원 화천	한우	1.2	양성	75차 발생
104	1.1	104차 신고	경기 광명	한우	1.2	양성	74차 발생
105	1.1	105차 신고	충남 천안	돼지	1.2	양성	76차 발생
106	1.1	106차 신고	강원 원주	돼지	1.2	양성	77차 발생
107	1.2	107차 신고	강원 춘천	한우	1.3	양성	78차 발생
108	1.2	108차 신고	충남 보령	돼지	1.3	양성	79차 발생
109	1.2	109차 신고	충북 괴산	한우	1.3	음성
110	1.2	110차 신고	경북 영천	한우	1.3	양성	80차 발생
111	1.2	111차 신고	경북 경주	한우	1.3	양성	81차 발생
112	1.2	112차 신고	경기 양평	한우	1.3	음성
113	1.2	113차 신고	충남 천안	젖소	1.3	양성	82차 발생
114	1.3	114차 신고	강원 철원	한우	1.4	양성	83차 발생
115	1.3	115차 신고	경기 의정부	한우	1.4	양성	84차 발생
116	1.3	116차 신고	강원 홍천	한우	1.4	양성	86차 발생
117	1.3	117차 신고	충북 괴산	돼지	1.4	양성	85차 발생
118	1.4	118차 신고	강원 춘천	한우	1.5	양성	87차 발생
119	1.4	119차 신고	강원 동해	한우	1.5	음성
120	1.4	120차 신고	충북 진천	돼지	1.5	양성	88차 발생
121	1.4	121차 신고	강원 양양	돼지	1.5	양성	89차 발생
122	1.4	122차 신고	경기 용인	돼지	1.5	양성	90차 발생
123	1.4	123차 신고	강원 횡성	돼지	1.5	양성	91차 발생
124	1.5	124차 신고	충북 음성	돼지	1.6	양성	92차 발생
125	1.5	125차 신고	충북 진천	유우	1.6	음성
126	1.5	126차 신고	충남 보령	돼지. 한우	1.6	음성
127	1.5	127차 신고	충남 당진	돼지	1.6	양성	93차 발생
128	1.5	128차 신고	충북 음성	한우	1.6	양성	94차 발생
129	1.5	129차 신고	경기 안성	돼지	1.6	양성	95차 발생
130	1.6	130차 신고	강원 화천	한우	1.7	음성
131	1.6	131차 신고	강원 강릉	한우	1.7	양성	96차 발생
132	1.6	132차 신고	경기 화성	돼지	1.7	양성	97차 발생
133	1.6	133차 신고	인천 계양	젖소	1.7	양성	98차 발생
134	1.6	134차 신고	경기 안성	돼지	1.7	양성	99차 발생
135	1.7	135차 신고	경기 평택	돼지	1.8	양성	100차 발생
136	1.7	136차 신고	경기 용인	돼지	1.8	양성	101차 발생
137	1.7	137차 신고	경기 안성	돼지	1.8	양성	102차 발생
138	1.7	138차 신고	강원 강릉	한우	1.8	음성
139	1.7	139차 신고	경북 포항	한우	1.8	양성	103차 발생
140	1.7	140차 신고	경기 이천	돼지	1.8	양성	104차 발생
141	1.7	141차 신고	강원 철원	돼지	1.8	양성	105차 발생
142	1.7	142차 신고	충북 괴산	돼지	1.8	음성
143	1.7	143차 신고	충북 진천	한우	1.8	음성
144	1.8	144차 신고	강원 평창	젖소.한우	1.8	양성	106차 발생
145	1.8	145차 신고	경북 경산	한우		음성
146	1.8	146차 신고	경북 봉화	돼지		양성	107차 발생
147	1.8	147차 신고	경기 안성	돼지		음성
148	1.8	148차 신고	충북 청원	육우		양성	108차 발생

구제역 매몰 대상 가축 80만두 돌파

돼지에도 백신접종 신중 검토

출처 : 연합뉴스 2011/01/05 15:08 
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/economy/2011/01/05/0302000000AKR20110105140500004.HTML?template=2087

(서울=연합뉴스) 윤종석 기자 = 구제역이 한우에서 돼지로 급속히 확산함에 따라 매몰 대상 가축이 80만두를 넘어섰다.

   정부는 돼지에도 구제역 백신을 접종하는 방안을 신중히 검토하고 있다.

   중앙재난안전대책본부는 5일 정례 브리핑에서 “강원 양양, 횡성, 충북 진천, 경기 용인의 돼지농장에서 구제역이 발생해 전체 발생지역은 6개 시ㆍ도 41개 시ㆍ군으로 확대됐다”고 밝혔다.

   이로써 2천875개 농장의 가축 82만6천456두가 매몰 대상이 됐고 이 중 72만2천54두가 묻혔다. 매몰 대상 가축은 우리나라에서 사육되는 가축의 6.1%다.

   매몰대상 가축 중 돼지가 73만5천409두(88.9%), 한우는 8만8천286두(10.6%)다.

   백신접종 대상 가축은 55개 시ㆍ군 농장과 축산과학원 등지에 있는 가축 98만9천293두이며, 이 중 47만8천493두(48.4%)는 이미 주사를 맞았다.

   인천 강화와 경북 안동, 영주, 예천, 경기 파주, 고양, 연천, 동두천, 여주, 성남, 충북 충주 등 11개 시ㆍ군은 접종이 끝났다.

   방역 작업에 1만7천500여명의 인력과 굴착기 등 장비 245대가 투입됐고, 이동 통제초소는 1천820개가 세워졌다.

   방역작업 중 2명이 사망했고 29명이 다쳤으며, 중대본은 공무원연금공단을 통해 부상자 전원에게 공상 처리 절차를 안내하는 등 공상 신청을 지원하고 있다.

   공상으로 인정되면 공무원연금법에 따라 입원 기간 공가 처리되고 치료비 등을 지원받을 수 있다.

   banana@yna.co.kr

=======================

`구제역 백신’ 돼지도 접종 검토

괴산.보령 충청권 돼지농장서 잇단 구제역.의심신고
백신접종 한우 돌연사.핏물 지하수 `후유증’ 심각

출처 : 연합뉴스 2011/01/05 00:10
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2011/01/04/0200000000AKR20110104214600002.HTML?did=1179m

(서울=연합뉴스) 이강원 기자 = 정부는 구제역이 6개 시.도로 확산됨에 따라 소 이외에 돼지에도 구제역 백신을 예방접종하는 방안을 신중히 검토중인 것으로 알려졌다.

   이미 한우를 대상으로 사실상 전국적으로 예방백신을 접종한다는 방침을 정한 정부가 돼지도 접종대상에 넣는 방안을 검토하는 것은 그만큼 이번 구제역 확산 양상이 심상치 않음을 보여주는 것이다.

   특히 4일 충북 괴산군 사리면 방축리 돼지농가와 지난 3일 충남 보령군 천북면 사호리 돼지농장에서 구제역이 발생한데다 충북 진천과 강원 양양.횡성, 경기 용인의 돼지농장에서 구제역 의심신고가 나오고 있는 것도 이번 검토와 무관치 않은 것으로 보인다.

   이와 별도로 경기 의정부시 산곡동, 강원 철원군 율이리 및 홍천군 어론리의 한우농가에서도 구제역이 확인된데 이어 이날 밤에는 강원 춘천시 남면 추곡리와 동해시 효가동 한우농가에서도 의심신고가 나왔다.

   농림수산식품부 고위관계자는 “최근 열린 가축방역협의회 실무회의에서는 돼지에 대해서도 예방백신을 접종하는 방안이 논의됐다”고 밝혔다.

   돼지에 백신을 접종하면 대상지역은 ▲돼지 구제역이 발생한 지역 ▲경기 안성.이천.여주.평택, 충남 보령.홍성.당진.서산 등 모돈과 종돈을 주로 기르는 8개 지역 ▲경기도와 충남 천안의 구제역 발생지역 반경 10km 이내 지역 등이 될 것으로 알려졌다.

   이들 지역은 주로 홍성과 서산의 한우개량사업소, 청양의 충남도 축산기술연구소, 천안의 축산연구원 등 주요 축산단지와 인접한 지역이다.

   이들 지역으로 구제역이 확산되면 국내 대표적인 축산단지가 초토화할 뿐 아니라 구제역이 호남지역으로까지 남하할 가능성이 커 돼지에 대한 백신 접종 등 선제적 방역이 필요하다는 게 정부의 판단이다.

   앞서 정부는 지난 3일 경기 전역과 강원, 충청 지역에도 소를 대상으로 구제역 백신을 접종하기로 했다. 특히 구제역이 발생하지 않았지만 추가 전염이 예상되는 지역에 대해서도 조만간 선제적.예방적 차원에서 백신을 접종할 예정이다.

   이는 구제역 발생 여부와 관계없이 앞으로 전염 조짐만 보여도 지역에 관계없이 소를 대상으로 백신을 접종하겠다는 것으로, 접종대상 지역이 사실상 전국으로 확대됐다는 것을 의미한다.

   이로써 백신 접종대상 지역은 전국의 49개 시.군으로 늘었고, 접종대상도 2만6천78농가의 소 70만905마리로 증가했다. 4일 현재 구제역은 6개 시.도, 40개 시.군의 93곳으로 늘었다.

   이런 가운데 지난 3일 경기 파주시 군내면 축산농가에서 백신을 접종한 한우가 돌연사하거나 사산하는 등 부작용으로 의심되는 증상이 잇따라 확인돼 방역당국에 비상이 걸렸다.

   또 같은 파주시 구제역 살처분.매몰지 부근에서는 `핏물 지하수’가 흘러나오는 등 정부의 방역작업에 따른 후유증이 잇따라 불거져나오고 있다.

   이번 구제역으로 전국 2천769농가의 가축 77만8천850마리가 살처분.매몰됐다.

   gija007@yna.co.kr

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.

방역당국, 예방접종 씨돈·모돈까지 확대 검토

출처 : 뉴시스 | 표주연 | 입력 2011.01.04 15:05 
 
【서울=뉴시스】표주연 이인준 기자 =구제역이 전국으로 빠르게 확산 중인 가운데 당국이 씨돈·모돈까지 예방접종 범위를 확대하는 것을 검토하고 있다.

농림수산식품부 관계자는 구제역 테스크포스팀(TF)에서 대응방안에 대한 논의가 이같이 진행되고 있다고 4일 밝혔다.

그동안 구제역 최초 발생농장에는 모돈이 있는 경우가 많았다. 수의사들디 임신 진단을 하기 위해 모돈과 직접 접촉하는 경우가 많아 감염원인이 될수 있기 때문이다.

종돈까지 예방접종을 확대하는 것은 축산업유지에 중요한 유전자원이기 때문이다.

한편 이날 강원 철원군 철원읍, 경기 의정부시 산곡동 등 한우농가 2곳과 충북 괴산군 사리면 돼지농가 1곳의 가축에서도 구제역 양성 확진판정이 나왔다.

강원 홍천군 서석면 축산농가 한우에 대한 정밀검사결과도 양성으로 판정됐다.

현재까지 구제역 양성으로 확진된 농가는 86건으로 늘었으며 매몰처리 규모는 77만8850마리로 집계됐다.

pyo000@newsis.com
ijoinon@newsis.com

경기·강원·충남 구제역 백신 추가 접종    

2011-01-03 13:04 CBS경제부 곽인숙 기자
http://www.nocutnews.co.kr/show.asp?idx=1679452


구제역이 전국적으로 확산되고 있는 가운데 경기도 전역과 강원, 충남의 일부 지역에 예방접종이 추가로 실시된다.

유정복 농림수산식품부 장관은 3일 농식품부에서 기자회견을 갖고 경기 전 지역과 강원도 춘천,원주,강릉,홍천 등 4개 시군과 충남 보령,홍성,청양 등 3개 시군을 대상으로 구제역 예방접종을 추가로 실시한다고 밝혔다.

유정복 장관은 “앞으로도 구제역 확산 방지를 위해여러 지역에서 동시에 산발적으로 발생해 추가 확산이 우려되는 발생지역과 발생하지 않았지만 전염이 우려되는 지역에 대해 예방접종을 선제적으로 확대 실시해 나갈 계획”이라고 밝혔다.

이로써 백신 접종 대상 소는 기존 53만 3천 마리에 45만 마리가 추가돼 모두 98만 3천여 마리로 늘었다.

============================

구제역 확산 방지, 9일까지 시·군 백신접종 결정-경기도 

출처 : 뉴시스  기사등록 일시 [2011-01-03 11:39:38] 
http://www.newsis.com/ar_detail/view.html?ar_id=NISX20110103_0007068548&cID=10201&pID=10200

【수원=뉴시스】윤상연 기자 = 경기도가 구제역의 남부권 확산을 차단하기 위해 도내 31개 시·군 모두에서 구제역 예방 백신접종을 실시하기로 했다.

3일 도 구제역재난안전대책본부에 따르면 31개 시·군에 9일까지 구제역 예방 백신접종을 실시하도록 공문을 시달했다.

도는 이에 따라 파주, 고양 등 예방 백신접종을 위해 17만두 분의 백신을 농림식품수산부로부터 공급 받은 데 이어, 2일 추가로 23만두 분의 예방 백신을 공급 받았다.

31개 시·군 구제역 예방 백신접종 결정은 지난해 12월26일·27일 양평, 여주, 이천에 이어 2일 광명에서도 구제역이 발생한 데 따른 것이다.

각종 차단방역에도 불구, 구제역이 남부권으로 지속 확산될 것을 우려해 최후의 수단을 실시하게 됐다.

도내 총 40만두 분의 구제역 예방 백신은 한육우 28만두, 젖소 12만두 분이다.

시·군 예방 백신 접종팀은 교육을 거쳐 이날 오후부터 예방 접종에 들어갈 계획이다.

한편 도내 구제역 발생지역은 파주, 고양 등 북부권 7개 시·군과 광명, 양평 등 남부권 4개 시·군을 합쳐 총 11개 시·군 14개 농가로 확대됐다.

============================

`구제역 백신 접종’ 사실상 전국으로 확대


 
출처 : 연합뉴스 2011/01/03 14:44 
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/economy/2011/01/03/0301000000AKR20110103130600002.HTML?template=2087

서울.경기.충남.강원 등 전국 49개 시.군 대상
“구제역 우려 비발생지역도 추후 예방접종”

(서울=연합뉴스) 이강원 기자 = 정부는 구제역이 경북.경기.인천.강원에 이어 충청 지역으로까지 확산됨에 따라 3일 경기 전역과 강원, 충청 지역에도 `구제역 백신’을 예방접종하기로 했다.

   특히 구제역이 발생하지 않았지만 추가 전염이 예상되는 지역에 대해서도 조만간 선제적.예방적 차원에서 백신을 접종한다는 방침이어서 사실상 예방백신 접종대상이 전국으로 확대됐다.

   유정복 농림수산식품부 장관은 이날 긴급 기자회견을 통해 “경기도 전역, 강원 춘천.원주.강릉.홍천, 충남 보령.홍성.청양 지역에 대해 구제역 예방백신을 접종하기로 했다”고 밝혔다.

   특히 유 장관은 “구제역이 확산되는 것을 막기 위해 추가 확산이 우려되는 구제역 발생지역과 발생지역에 둘러싸여 추가 전염이 우려되는 비(非)발생지역에 대해서도 예방접종을 선제적으로 확대할 계획”이라고 강조했다.

   이는 구제역 발생 여부와 관계없이 앞으로 구제역 전염 조짐만 보여도 지역에 관계없이 예방백신을 접종하겠다는 것으로, 백신 접종대상 지역이 사실상 전국으로 확대됐다는 것을 의미한다.

   이로써 구제역 접종대상 지역은 전국의 49개 시.군으로 늘어났다. 3일 현재 구제역은 6개 시.도, 38개 시.군의 89곳으로 늘었다.

   예방백신 접종 지역은 우선 구제역 발생지역의 경우 ▲인천은 강화(접종).서구 ▲경기는 양주.연천.파주.고양.포천.김포.남양주.여주.양평.이천.광명.가평(이상 접종) ▲강원은 횡성.춘천.원주.홍천.강릉(이상 접종).대화.화천.철원.양구 ▲충북은 충주(접종) ▲충남은 천안.보령(이상 접종) ▲경북은 안동.예천.영주.경주.영천(이상 접종).영양.영덕.봉화.의성.청송.포항 등이다.

<그래픽> 구제역 확산 현황 (서울=연합뉴스) 박영석 기자 = 충남도는 3일 “지난 2일 구제역 의심신고가 접수된 보령시 천북면 사호리의 축산농가에서 시료를 채취해 국립수의과학검역원에 정밀검사를 의뢰한 결과 ‘구제역 양성’ 판정을 받았다”고 밝혔다. zeroground@yna.co.kr @yonhap_graphics(트위터)