Area 4A, Nobel House
17 Smith Square
T: 03459 33 55 77
London
xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
SW1P 3JR
www.gov.uk/defra
Captain Bryn Wayt
Our ref:
RFI
9571
Email
: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
4 January 2018
Dear Captain Wayt,
INFORMATION REQUEST: CONTINGENCY PLAN – EXOTIC NOTIFIABLE DISEASES
OF ANIMALS IN ENGLAND 2017
Thank you for your request for information, which we received on 6 December 2017 about
the contingency plan for exotic notifiable diseases of animals in England 2017. As you
know we have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
We enclose a copy of the information you requested:
Question 1
What scientific pen-side test device/s have been invented by Defra in the 17 years
after FMD2001 and how many are ready to use today? Over recent years pen-side test equipment has been developed by commercial
organisations for the diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. These are not currently used
as a field diagnostic tool in GB, as the current equipment is not sufficiently reliable
particularly in the case of negative results. Therefore any samples taken from suspect
animals will always need to be submitted for testing by the National Reference Laboratory.
The potential benefit of using pen-side tests in the future is recognised and being kept
under review as the technology advances.
Defra does not invent diagnostic tools but has invested significantly in these technologies
via research funding to the Pirbright Institute.
In terms of outputs:
Antigen detection:
Pen-side lateral-flow devices (for FMDV antigen detection) are now available (see
http://www.svanova.com/products/bovine/bp11.html. This test format suffers from a
reduced analytical sensitivity and while it is readily able to confirm positive cases, it is not
so suitable to rule out FMD suspicion on a farm.
Molecular tests:
The Pirbright Institute has evaluated a wide range of different technologies and equipment
platforms
(via
research
projects
funded
by
Defra
and
EU
[see:
http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/51773_en.html and
http://www.rapidia.eu/) that have
potential to provide test results with high analytical sensitivity and specificity. A review on
the current capabilities of these assays has been recently published (see: Howson et al.,
(2017) Revue Scientifique et Technique 36 (2), 479-498).
We keep the policy under review as new evidence becomes available.
Question 2
What written precautions are available within DEFRA, to ensure no vet mis-identifies
the presence of FMDv by assuming "clinical signs" are the Gold Standard, and thus
reduce the chances of "over reporting FMD" when it strikes again?
In the Foot and Mouth Disease Control Strategy for Great Britain, Section 6.1 states FMD
will be confirmed if the laboratory tests indicate the presence of FMD virus. The law
provides the powers to confirm cases on clinical signs alone and this is something we may
adopt in a large scale outbreak in order to prioritise the use of resources.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69456/fmd-
control-strategy111128.pdf) Question 3
Why is there NO MENTION of "pen-side" testing in the latest FMD Contingency Plan
(28 Nov 2017) as clearly these kits are available?
Our position has not changed since our response to you on 28/09/16:
We keep this policy under review as new evidence becomes available.
Question 4
Why is there no mention of, "Vaccination to Live" as a method of control in the new
FMD Contingency Plan more than NINE YEARS down the line or 16 years?
The GB Foot and Mouth Disease control strategy includes information on possible
vaccination strategies, and vaccinate to live is one of several options set out in the strategy
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69456/fmd-
control-strategy111128.pdf) Questions 5-9 - I will answer the following questions together:
5. On Page 39 of the latest FMD Contingency Plan (28 Nov 2017) it mentions a,
"Large outbreak" and what actions are required thereafter - what is DEFRA’s
definition of a "Large Outbreak" in terms of animal numbers of PROPERLY
diagnosed and authenticated presence of the FMDv?
6. On Page 50 para 4 it mentions, "Large scale outbreaks". What is DEFRA’s
definition of another type of, "Large scale outbreaks" (note the plural case).
7. On Page 58 para 58 there is mention of another description of an outbreak, this
time it is called, "an outbreak of significant size". What does that mean exactly?
How many proven infected animals to make it a "significant size"? If the actual
numbers of animals involved are not attached to "an outbreak" then further
action/s become dominated by numbers.
8. On Page 59 para 59 we have the next vague description of an outbreak as,
"where an outbreak is small". Any Plan that purports to be 'fit for purpose'
should not have so many types of "outbreaks". What is a, "small outbreak"?
What numbers of animals, Laboratory proven with FMDv please?
9. There’s Large/Large-scale/Significant/and small outbreaks. Define precisely
what DEFRA means by all these different catch-words please, and where are the
dovetails for each outbreak?
The document published on 28 November 2017 is Defra’s Contingency Plan for Exotic
Notifiable Diseases of Animals in England. It is a generic plan covering the response to
exotic notifiable diseases including Foot and Mouth Disease, Avian Influenza, Newcastle
Disease and all other exotic notifiable diseases of animals.
The descriptors used in the Plan are qualitative descriptors and not linked to formal
definitions, all outbreaks are different and the complexity is not solely linked to the number
of infected premises. Other factors include the disease and whether there are public
health or food safety impacts, geographic spread, duration, number of species affected,
media interest, etc.
Question 10
Why is it now necessary to Clean and Disinfect TWICE after a farm has been,
"depopulated" of suspected FMD infected animals? During and subsequent to FMD 2001 the policy has remained to undertake preliminary
and secondary cleansing and disinfection, which are necessary steps to eradicate
contamination and are required by EU law and OIE chapters. This is detailed in the Foot
and Mouth Disease Control Strategy for Great Britain, Section 6.11 states:
After the carcases have been disposed of, preliminary disinfection of the premises is
carried out by APHA officials or contracted staff and at the cost of Government. This
involves a full cleansing and spray down with approved disinfectant of the areas in which
infected animals have been and the areas used for culling.
Section 10.1 details that restrictions will remain in place until either:
The occupier has undertaken secondary cleansing and disinfection in accordance with
the directions of APHA and sentinel animals have been placed on the premises and
shown no signs of disease on clinical inspections and from laboratory tests on samples
taken from them. Secondary cleansing and disinfection is the responsibility of, and at
the cost of, the occupier of the premises. Sentinel restocking of the premises may be
permitted under licence and cannot take place until at least 21 days after APHA is
satisfied that secondary cleansing and disinfection has been undertaken to the required
standard;
or
A period of time has elapsed for virus to decay naturally and no longer pose a threat of
infecting animals. This is usually one year for FMD virus.
Question 11
Why is the owner now required to pay for this second C&D?
Animal keepers are compensated for animals culled and preliminary cleansing costs are
born by government to ensure the immediate disease risk is mitigated. Industry need to
take business decisions on whether to seek commercial insurance against such risks.
This is a long standing policy.
Question 12
I have read that a simulated FMD Exercise WILLOW was carried out in December
2016. I cannot find any post-exercise Report; can you give me a link to this Report
please?
This was not a national simulation exercise and a report has not been published.
Question 13
I see on Page13 that samples can be taken from a farm that is under Condition
"WHITE" and without positive verification by the Pirbright Reference Laboratory the
vet on-scene can elevate the Condition to RED with no further deliberations, i.e. NO
laboratory examinations/tests. What lawful authority exists to Slaughter on
Suspicion like this?
The powers are given in the Animal Health Act 1981, in Schedule 3 part 2A:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/22/schedule/3 The lack of virus being detected through blood sampling does not necessarily indicate that
animals have not been exposed to infection and are in the early stages of infection as it
takes a few days for virus to multiply at point of entry and appear in detectable levels in the
blood. Farms may be depopulated where there is either a clear epidemiological risk to an
infected premises, or where there are clear clinical signs suggestive of FMD.
(a) What does it take to activate the Lessons Learned from FMD2001?
Defra undertakes a lessons identified review after each significant outbreak of disease,
these are published via GOV.UK. The last review for FMD was completed after the 2007
outbreak. The document ‘Foot and Mouth disease 2007: a review and lessons learned’
details the lessons learned from 2001.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/foot-and-mouth-disease-2007-a-review-and-
lessons-learned
Question 14
Suspicion Level 4 is mentioned in this new FMD Contingency Plan (Nov 2017).
Where is there an up to date definition chart of what that means, and of course what
does Suspicion Level 1,2,3 mean as well?
We will make this clearer in future versions of the plan. This means if the clinical signs or
other epidemiological link mean the likelihood of FMD or any other exotic notifiable
disease being present is near certain and it is necessary to cull immediately to prevent the
spread of disease.
Question 15
On page 65 para 61 there is brazen mention of, "pre-emptive depopulation" - has
DEFRA learned nothing from 2001? Slaughter, is the real word to use is it not?
We assume you are referring to paragraphs 22 and 23 on page 65.
We have adopted the definitions used throughout Europe to describe the different
circumstances that animals are killed. These are set out in COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R1099&from=EN
The definitions are:
‘depopulation’ means the process of killing animals for public health, animal health, animal
welfare or environmental reasons under the supervision of the competent authority;
‘slaughtering’ means the killing of animals intended for human consumption;
It is therefore appropriate to use the term pre-emptive depopulation. The Contingency Plan
clearly sets-out that this is a power that remains available to Defra but is not a default
option.
Question 16
On page 71 para 61 mention is made of "Pre-vaccination" visits by vets, why are
these necessary at all?
Time is of the essence in these matters, why is it being wasted with such visits?
As stated the paragraph (page 71 paragraph 61); the visits will check animal handling
facilities and will also inspect animals for clinical signs of FMD. The visits will ensure that
we do not start vaccinating animals which are showing clinical signs. Such a visit would
not be necessary if we were adopting a suppressive approach.
Information disclosed in response to this FOIA request is releasable to the public. In
keeping with the spirit and effect of the FOIA and the government’s Transparency Agenda,
this letter and the information disclosed to you may be placed on
GOV.UK, together with
any related information that will provide a key to its wider context. No information
identifying you will be placed on the GOV.UK website.
We attach Annex A explaining the copyright that applies to the information being released
to you, and Annex B giving contact details should you be unhappy with the service you
have received.
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Marie Taylor
Information Rights Team
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Annex A
Copyright
The information supplied to you continues to be protected by copyright. You are free to
use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research,
and for any other purpose authorised by an exception in current copyright law. Documents
(except photographs or logos) can be also used in the UK without requiring permission for
the purposes of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication,
would require the permission of the copyright holder.
Most documents produced by Defra will be protected by Crown Copyright. Most Crown
copyright information can be re-used under the
Open Government Licence. For
information about the OGL and about re-using Crown Copyright information please see
The National Archives website. Copyright in other documents may rest with a third party. For information about obtaining
permission from a third party see the
Intellectual Property Office’s website. _________________________________________
Annex B
Complaints
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request you may
make a complaint or appeal against our decision under section 17(7) of the FOIA or under
regulation 18 of the EIRs, as applicable, within 40 working days of the date of this letter.
Please write to Nick Teall, Head of Information Rights, Area 4A, Nobel House, 17 Smith
Square, London, SW1P 3JR (email
: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx) and he will
arrange for an internal review of your case. Details of Defra’s complaints procedure are on
ou
r website. If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, section 50 of the FOIA and
regulation 18 of the EIRs gives you the right to apply directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for a decision. Please note that generally the ICO cannot
make a decision unless you have first exhausted Defra’s own complaints procedure. The
ICO can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF