Foot and Mouth
(Here we go again)
by Steven Ransom

"The remedies which have been devised in countries like Great Britain to deal with the trouble, namely, the slaughter of the affected animals, are both superficial and also inadmissible. At the worst there will only be the mildest possible attack which will disappear in a fortnight or so." Albert Howard, Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease

Until Monday 12th March 2001, Wynn Gittens was a stock farmer with 200 head of cattle and 1350 sheep at Ucheldre Farm, near Welshpool, Wales. But in the space of a single day, his whole life would be turned upside-down. That Monday morning, Wynn noticed a couple of his cows were drooling at the mouth and another was limping slightly. Abiding by the statutory legislation instructing farmers immediately to report any suspected symptoms indicating foot and mouth, Wynn called his local vet. A Ministry of Agriculture, Foods and Fisheries (MAFF) representative arrived shortly afterwards. The official took a look at one of the suspected cows and said, "I don't need to see any more. This cow has got foot and mouth. I need to use your telephone." A series of calls was then made, the official informing his superiors and various other officials that an immediate slaughter of Wynn Gittens' animals should be carried out. The paperwork was completed and another telephone call was made to request the attendance of a livestock evaluation officer. That evening, all Wynn's livestock lay dead.

THE SCARY HEADLINES
For a month or more, international television and radio bulletins had been bringing world audiences graphic reports of this 'encroaching pestilence'. Mounds of destroyed cattle; gruesome pyres burning throughout the night; ashen-faced reporters delivering the latest foot and mouth outbreak statistics; people being warned to stay away from the countryside. "As well as being airborne, the foot and mouth virus can adhere to car tyres. Do not venture into the countryside unless absolutely necessary," warned the BBC 10 O'Clock Evening News. The same feature included reports of international rugby matches being cancelled, a meat-shortage crisis pending, sweeping shots of once-thriving, now empty cattle markets, lots of hype, lots of emotion and siege-mentality language. We were in the grip of something monstrous and Wynn Gittens' story was just one of hundreds that appeared to confirm that the dreaded foot and mouth was wreaking havoc across the British countryside. But was it? As we are about to discover, the truth was very different.

THE FACTS ON FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (FMD)
What is foot and mouth disease? Current wisdom theorises that FMD is caused by an airborne virus that spreads from beast to beast. Symptoms of FMD in livestock usually begin with a temperature, followed within 24 hours by the appearance of blisters and ulcerations on places such as the tongue, lips, gums, dental pad, interdigital skin of the feet, bulbs of the heels and milk teats. Occasionally, ulcerations appear inside the nostrils or on the muzzle or vulva. Visually, these ulcerations are the equivalent of large cold sores. The resultant illness and lameness causes decreased appetite, a drop in milk yield, a drop in productivity and of course, increased care costs.

Contrary to the scary headlines, death through FMD occurs in less than 5 percent of cases. The meat is fit to eat. Abigail Wood is a vet and researcher into the history of FMD, based at the University of Manchester in the UK. Ms Wood does not accept the 'rampaging virus' reports. I contacted her as a result of an article she had written which began thus: "Foot and mouth is as serious to animals as a bad cold is to human beings. So why the concern?"

A COMMON ILLNESS
Until almost the end of the 19th century, FMD was common across the UK. In fact, it was endemic. But it did not destroy farming. We lived with it. Our cattle became ill and then they recovered. Life continued as normal. In those early years, FMD was as much a part of British farming as bad weather, poor harvests and other afflictions affecting the agricultural livelihood. In summarising the FMD 'crisis', this simple extract from Abigail Wood's account of the 1920s Cheshire FMD outbreak is most revealing. Trawled from local newspapers available at the Cheshire Records Office, we read: "Ministry teams were so far behind in their slaughtering that on many farms the cows had recovered before the slaughterers had arrived. Farmers looked at their now-normal cows in bewilderment and asked, 'Was that it? Was that trivial illness what all the fuss was about?' "

Upon collecting my 10-year-old son from his Monday night activity club, I was reminded of the all-pervading influence of the media. When I arrived, the children were taking part in a group discussion over some of the 'burning mounds of cattle' images. My son's contribution was, "They shouldn't be killing them, because they get better after about two weeks." Looks of incomprehension came over the faces of the other children, one of them replying, "No they don't. There's no way they can cure it!"

The battle for the mind begins at a very young age indeed.

MISDIAGNOSIS IS RIFE
The principle blood test to determine the virus supposedly behind FMD (and I stress the word 'supposedly', for reasons that will soon become evident), is what is known as the ELISA test, or enzyme-linked immuno-absorbent assay test. In simple terms, the ELISA test delivers a 'positive' FMD diagnosis, not by identifying the presence of any virus in the blood sample, but by identifying the presence of certain proteins and antibodies. These antibodies, we are told, are specific to foot and mouth and are present in the blood because somewhere in the system, the virus must also be present. Unfortunately though, assorted antibodies, proteins and general debris are present in varying degrees in the bloodstream at all times. In addition, there are all manner of different illnesses and causative factors, minor as well as more serious, that can invoke the presence of these antibodies and thus elicit a 'false positive' test. As an indicator of a specific illness therefore, the ELISA test is meaningless.

SHHH! THIS MUST NOT GET OUT!
In human medicine, the ELISA test is used to diagnose HIV. Within the industry, the test is acknowledged to be responsible for delivering a high number of false positives. Conventional medical literature lists some 60 different conditions that can elicit a false positive response in the standard HIV test. In one recent case of misdiagnosis, a spokesperson for the hospital in question stated: "These HIV tests are not reliable; a lot of factors can skew the tests, like fever or pregnancy. Everybody knows that."

But not everybody does know that. Once again, conflicting interests, entrenched scientific error and the threat of massive litigation have so far stopped these unsavoury details from becoming more widely known. As far as FMD is concerned, the possibility that the ELISA test might be detecting harmless antibodies and delivering a false positive FMD diagnosis is all too real. Kelly Sapsford, Operations Manager at Harlan Sera Labs, a serum and antibody manufacturing company, immediately understood my reasons for requesting information on the validity of the FMD test and was also aware of the imprecise nature of ELISA. She stated: "No test is perfect and antibodies in animals are not necessarily specific to one disease. Picture a key that fits a certain lock. The key to that lock is not necessarily unique. There may well be other locks out there that the key will fit."

On a more serious procedural note, at no point in the visit to Mr Gittens' farm was any blood taken independently to confirm the official's initial diagnosis. Not that this would have made any difference, given that ELISA is meaningless anyway. But the fact that no tests were taken is in direct contravention of the practice and procedure guidelines laid out on the Institutes for Animal Health main web-page. So, why do these cattle become ill? And how infectious is foot and mouth anyway?

FOOT AND MOUTH INFECTIOUS?
A FATAL BLOW TO THE THEORY
Referring again to Albert Howard and his classic work Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease, Howard's many years' farming experience and research into cattle disease and health led him to believe firmly that foot and mouth is not an infectious disease. Rather, it is an opportunistic disease arising as a result of poor diet, combined with intensive and therefore unhealthy farming methods.

Said Howard: "I always felt that the real cause of such epidemics was either starvation, due to the intense pressure of the bovine population on the limited food supply, or, when food was adequate, to mistakes in feeding and management."

Howard believed that cattle must always have, not only good fodder and forage, but ample time for chewing the cud, for rest and digestion. Grain ration was also important, as well as a little fresh green food. Access to clean fresh water should also be provided and the coat of the working animal should also be kept clean and free from dung. The next step in maintaining the health of the herd, according to Howard, was to discourage the official veterinary surgeons from inoculating the animals with various vaccines and medicines to ward off the common diseases. Howard firmly refused to have anything to do with such measures and the veterinarians took no steps to compel him to adopt their remedies.

THE 'INFECTED' RUBBED NOSES WITH
THE UNINFECTED AND NOTHING HAPPENED!
Howard performed a simple experiment. His well-fed animals were brought in contact with cattle that were showing signs of foot and mouth. This was done by allowing them to use the common pastures on which diseased cattle sometimes grazed. His cattle also rubbed muzzles with cattle diagnosed with FMD. Nothing happened. Neither did any infection occur as the result of Howard's oxen using the common pastures. No disease spread at all. These and other experiences, covering a period of twenty-six years at three widely separated centres - Pusa in Bihar and Orissa, Quetta on the Western Frontier, and Indore in Central India - convinced Howard that:

"… foot-and-mouth disease is a consequence of malnutrition, pure and simple, and that the remedies which have been devised in countries like Great Britain to deal with the trouble, namely, the slaughter of the affected animals, are both superficial and also inadmissible. Such attempts to control an outbreak should cease. The diseased animals will soon recover. There will most likely be no infection of the healthy stock. At the worst there will only be the mildest possible attack which will disappear in a fortnight or so."

If that isn't the complete undoing of DEFRA's easily transmissible virus hypothesis, what is? Reading Howard's full report at Soil and Health, the main points are as follows:

· Everything was done to provide the cattle with suitable housing and fresh green fodder, silage, and grain, all produced from fertile soil
· A floor of beaten earth was provided, which is much more restful for the cloven hoof than a cement or brick floor
· The consequently healthy cattle then rubbed noses with cattle with foot and mouth and those healthy cattle remained healthy
· When the cattle were overworked, they became run down and a few cases of foot and mouth began appearing. These cattle were then rested and within two weeks were back to normal
· The animals' health was maintained by abiding by the natural laws of good husbandry and by refusing firmly to have anything to do with veterinary attempts to inoculate again and again against disease

Howard, Albert, Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease, op. cit.
Howard, Albert, op. cit

RESOURCES
Wake up to Health in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom
(if you live outside the UK, click here to enter the correct store)