TELEVISED pictures of British livestock producers’ grim faces confronting another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease highlight the importance of livestock biosecurity.
Markets around the world slammed shut to British livestock as news of the outbreak spread.
FMD might not be a danger to humans, but the economic implications are such that new British prime minister Gordon Brown cut short his vacation to oversee the crisis management.
The goal was to prevent a repeat of the 2001 outbreak that forced the slaughter of more than 6.5 million animals, damaged rural tourism and cost Britain an estimated $18 billion.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The outbreak this time appears to have been contained and animal transportation and slaughter resumed late last week. But the scare was real.
Concerns about animal diseases are rising around the world. Avian influenza continues to pop up, sustaining worries that it might mutate into a form easily contracted by humans.
As many as 50 million hogs in China have died of a new variant of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, causing pork prices there to soar.
And the trade repercussions of BSE continue to plague the cattle industry in Canada and United States.
Canada’s experience with BSE stirred the livestock industry and federal and provincial governments to action.
Progress has been made on individual files including a national livestock identification program, a control station on the Manitoba-Ontario border to provide east-west zoning to contain the damage from an infectious trade-halting disease, and emergency planning. But the effort has not exhibited the urgency it deserves.
The Canadian Animal Health Coalition, an alliance of producer organizations, livestock industry players and governments, recognizes this and has pushed to make animal health a pillar of the new Growing Together agriculture policy.
It would include a national, all-species, all-disease risk management program and provide the necessary co-ordination and commitment to get the job done.
Federal and provincial agriculture ministers have given general support to the idea. As it is fleshed out, the needs of primary producers must be kept in mind.
Initiatives must be affordable and paperwork minimized.
However, while some producers might view increased tracking and record filing as an intrusion into their privacy, this should not impede project development and implementation.
With globalization increasing the danger of foreign animal disease transmission, the cost of inaction is unacceptable.
The coalition in 2002 estimated that a “worst case” outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada could cost $45 billion, but that could be cut in half if an effective control strategy was in place.
With a potential saving of more than $20 billion on the line, it is time for urgent action.
