Bovine Tuberculosis in the UK:

Should we take a new approach?

A little history
Current position
Is it working? Can it work?
Is there an alternative?
 A little history
Official attempts to control BTb began in 1925 (a false start in
1907).
Financial incentives rewarding herd freedom began in 1935.
Compulsory eradication began in 1950.
Whole of Great Britain declared attested in 1960.
Pockets of infection in cattle persisted in West Country.
Badgers identified with Mycobacterium bovis infection in 1971.
A variety of interventions against badgers since mid-1970s
Goal of eradication (or OTF status) re-affirmed in Defra twenty-
five year strategy (2013).

Source: MAFF (1965), Defra (2017)

Source: Defra (2013)
 Is it working? Can it work? (1)
Epidemic, at best, stabilising and possibly worsening.

Numbers of cattle slaughtered still increasing (England):

2005 22,847
2012: 28,286
12 months to end-June 2017 30,980

Emerging trouble spots in Edge Area.

Area subject to badger killing estimated to be equivalent to 4 English counties

Numbers of badgers to be killed in 2017 may exceed 33,000.

Increasingly less onerous killing licence conditions.

Killing licence extensions not related to incidents in cattle. Gamekeeping?

More killing zones planned.

Source: Defra, ONS (2017)
Is it working? Can it work? (2)
FMD

Source: MAFF (1965)

Source:
Source: Defra (2013)
Wikipedia (2017)
 Is there an alternative? (1)
Successful disease control and eradication policy needs to

use appropriate techniques and be regularly reviewed.

be supported by a comprehensive understanding of the organism and its hosts
be sustainable
be cost-effective
be democratically accountable.
show measurable gains and a clear path towards an end-point.

Given that BTb is, at least in the UK, a multi-host disease and that eradication
in the UK, given the state of knowledge, is probably impracticable, it is
irresponsible not to consider an alternative approach:-
bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy. In the UK, cattle-to-
human transmission is negligible. [ ] there is little evidence for a positive cost benefit
in terms of animal health. Such evidence is required; otherwise, there is little
justification for the large sums of public money spent on bTB control in the UK.
Torgerson and Torgerson (2009) Trends in Microbiology, 18, 67-72
 Is there an alternative? (2)
Instead of seeking to eliminate the hazard, M. bovis, manage the risks better.

Basic elements:

Public Health controls (as is)

Enhanced protection of Low Risk Area via movement controls
High Risk Area (& Edge Area?):
periodic testing maintained with removal of reactors
no compulsion to seek OTF status
no movement restrictions within HRA (with exceptions)
Moratorium on killing of wildlife pending research into population growth,
farming practices and transmission risk factors.