Avian influenza (Bird flu): Avian Influenza Stakeholder meeting, 11 July 2006
| Attending:
Ann Bachmet (Poultry Club of GB) |
Christine Ashton (BWA) By Telephone
|
1. Introductions – David Dawson (Chair)
1.1 Debby Reynolds passed her apologies to the group but was unable to attend due to a CVO’s meeting in Brussels.
1.2 David Dawson outlined the three purposes of the meeting, which were to;
1. Update on latest developments and recent announcements
2. Take a forward look to the Autumn period
3. Thank the group for the work of the past year
2. Autumn Qualitative Risk Assessment – The risk to the UK from avian influenza in the coming months – John Wilesmith
2.1 John Wilesmith introduced the Autumn Qualitative Risk Assessment as a summary of how the understanding of the disease has grown over the past nine months. The report highlights the continued need for good surveillance and high standards of biosecurity as a means to minimise the risk that H5N1 will be introduced into the UK.
2.2 The implications of the discovery of a Grebe infected with H5N1 in Northern Spain was considered by expert ornithologists. They believed that the species was unlikely to have mixed with other migratory birds and was not a visitor to the UK, meaning that it did not significantly alter the risk to the UK. However it was mentioned that the more widespread the disease spreads the higher the risk to the UK will be.
3. Update on conclusions following the Norfolk outbreak of H7N3 – An opportunity to discuss the disease pathways for avian influenza – John Wilesmith
3.1 The small scale of the outbreak showed that there was good biosecurity on the premises involved and that it occurred in an area of low poultry density. It is believed that the first free range flock was infected by wild birds. The second free range flock was owned by the same person making it likely that movements passed the infection between them. Foxes are then thought to have transported the infection to the broiler breeder premises.
3.2 Stakeholders asked how the fox transported the disease inside the broiler house. It was thought that maintenance staff working on the back of the building had transported the virus round to the entrance on their shoes. This had then entered the house on the shoes of poultry workers.
3.3 Excellent record keeping on the part of the industry aided tracing of movements from the infected premises. It was acknowledged that Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza is difficult to identify and that Defra were looking to revise guidance for identifying the disease.
3.4 A compartmentalised approach was using in containing the disease rather than implementing 3km and 10km zones. Links between the Infected Premises and other premises were traced and investigated.
3.5 Stakeholders asked whether in future cases businesses might be treated as compartments too, allowing for part of the operation to remain unaffected whilst the other was under restrictions. David Dawson agreed that this would be considered.
3.6 It was agreed that during an outbreak contact with people on the ground was vital. There was constant contact during the outbreak between the LDEC and the NDEC.
4. Plans for future use of the poultry register. Further work and possible changes. – Bill Parish
4.1 Stakeholders were informed that had been no change in the poultry register legislation. It is still only compulsory for those people who own 50 or more birds to register, and anyone with 50 or less birds may still do so voluntarily. The register is being revised to make it a permanent entity and it was suggested that rather than re-registering every year, poultry owners would be asked to update their details if the size or nature of their flock changed significantly.
4.2 They were also informed that on registration, 80% of people consented to their information being used in the event of disease outbreak other than AI, such as Newcastle Disease. Bill Parish proposed to the group that the data protection statement could be rewritten to allow for the data to be used for other poultry related diseases, such as salmonella. Stakeholders stated that this was a sensible measure but that those who have registered must be properly informed of the change and that those who do not wish to take part will have their wishes respected.
4.3 Bill Parish proposed that the ‘commercial criteria’ section should be deleted as this missed out many non-commercial keepers with over 50 birds. The group supported this.
4.4 Stakeholders commented that the Register could be used outside of disease outbreaks to inform those who have registered. This would highlight the added value of registering.
4.5 The group was assured that any further use of the data on the Register would be consulted on.
5. EU proposed changes to State Aid guidelines – Sarah Church
5.1 Information on the proposed changes was circulated to the group following the last meeting on 2 June. Sarah Church highlighted three key changes to the guidelines for disease control. These would be to;
1. Limit aid to only Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) – defined as companies with less that 250 employees and an annual turnover of under £50 million
2. Limit compensation payments to outbreaks of disease which result in a 30% production loss on the holding concerned
3. Limit compensation payments to 75% of the market value (80% in Less Favoured Areas).
5.2 Under the current timetable these changes would come into force on 1 January 2007. Whilst Defra supports the changes as part of the ongoing cost sharing agenda it also is calling for a delay in implementation to allow those affected time to prepare.
5.3 The CLA asked whether game birds would be included in these measures. Action: This would be looked into to. Sarah Church
5.4 Stakeholders also requested that the proposed changes and their implications be condensed into a document that could be circulated to the group. Action: Document to be produced and circulated.
6. AOB
Vaccination
6.1 Andrew Jones outlined the morning’s Ministerial statement that Defra has invited tenders for 10 million doses of avian influenza vaccine for potential use in poultry and other captive birds. This will be through a contract to supply within a short timescale rather than a purchase of vaccine because of the greater flexibility that gives for vaccine with a limited shelf-life.
The move is part of sensible contingency planning to ensure the availability of supply so that all disease control options are available in the future. However it does not change our policy that we would not vaccinate ahead of an outbreak or as an immediate disease response. Good biosecurity, surveillance and early detection are the most effective methods of disease prevention and control.
6.2 Stakeholders raised whether a preventative vaccination plan would be prepared as another contingency measure. Fred Landeg explained that a number of scenarios have been discussed and recognised that some species of bird cannot be housed. However, our assessment remained that the risk of avian influenza to the UK was not currently high enough to justify vaccination in terms of the limitations of current vaccines, although we continue to keep the disease situation and scientific developments under close review. David Dawson summarised that this was an issue that needed further discussion especially if the risk assessment changed in any way.
6.3 BPC commented that it supported the announcement but would also like further work to be done internationally to make sure that the issue of vaccination is not a barrier to trade.
Product marking
6.4 BRC asked whether SCoFCAH had made a decision on the marking of product leaving a protection zone. Defra had written to the committee asking for the issue to be covered on the meeting of the 18 July.
Page last modified:
November 14, 2007 13:36