Avian influenza (Bird flu): Avian Influenza Stakeholder meeting, 11 October 2005
| Debby Reynolds (Defra) – Chair David Dawson (Defra) – Deputy Chair Ian Hill (Defra) – Secretary Paul Bullen (Defra) John Wilesmith (Defra) Duncan Prior (Defra) Julian West (Defra) Vanessa Wilson (Defra) Graham Lewis (Defra) Simon Hewitt (Defra) Peter Kendall (Defra) Fred Landeg (Defra) Mirzet Sabirovic (Defra) Richard Drummond (Defra) Rebecka Le (Defra) |
Gordon Hickman (Animal Health) Rob Paul (Animal Health) Bruce Pattern (EMI) Mike Lamont (SEERAD) Ailsa Wight (DoH) Anna Jones (Soil Association) Andrew Gunther (Soil Association) Julie Edwards (NFU) Mike Clark (BVPA / NFU) Rachel Newton (BVA) Freda Scott-Park (BVA) Peter Bradnock (BPC) Howard Hellig (BPC and BEIC) Mark Williams (BEIC) Louisa Platt (BEIC) John Avizienius (RSPCA) |
1. Introductions and welcome
Debby Reynolds (DR) opened by thanking attendees for coming to the meeting at such short notice.
2. AI in Turkey and Romania
2.1 Samples had been sent to a competent laboratory in Romania and the results to date had been negative, but that testing is not yet complete. The suspicion of an outbreak had arisen in a backyard flock in the Danube delta region with 53 chickens and 47 ducks.
2.2 The outbreak in Turkey had occurred in an open-air farm with 1800 turkeys, 1700 of which died after the first clinical signs were detected on 1 October. All remaining birds on the farm and in the village were killed and all carcasses destroyed. The farm is in the Region of Balikesir, in the northwestern part of Anatolia. Laboratory tests had given positive results for avian influenza virus serotype H5. Further tests were pending to determine the pathogenicity of the isolate and the "N" of the virus strain. A French Minister had stated that the virus isolated in Turkey was H5N1, we were waiting for the official results from the VLA, Weybridge.
2.3 Defra had not fully investigated whether either the north-western part of Anatolia or the Danube delta region were on migratory routes to the UK or Russia. A meeting with Bird Migratory experts was scheduled to take place shortly, a summary of this meeting would be published on the Defra website. Migratory mapping is available from the Wetland Wildlife Trust.
3. Surveillance of Wild Birds
3.1 EU Member States had agreed to increase surveillance for AI in certain
species of migratory waterbirds. The Defra programme was in three strands.
First, there were the existing arrangements for examining bird carcases
where there had been an unusual mortality event (“die-off”).
Second, samples would be taken from birds caught live by staff at wetlands
centres and then released. The final strand was that samples would be
taken from birds shot as part of existing legal wildfowling activities.
Sampling of live caught and shot birds will be carried out between October
and 31 December 2005.
3.2 It was likely that a low pathogenic virus would be found during the
survey and the implication of finding a virus would be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis. If the virus were of the H5 or H7 subtype surveillance
would be increased.
4. Trade Situation
4.1 In line with EU-wide measures, the UK have banned imports of live
birds and products from Turkey, which could potentially transmit the disease
to other birds. This includes unprocessed feathers, as they might be contaminated
with faecal material, which can transmit the disease. Romania had voluntarily
suspended all exports of live birds and products which could potentially
transmit the disease to other birds.
4.2 Some argued that imports of processed feathers should also be banned.
Howard Hellig and Freda Scott-Park agreed to challenge the Defra risk
assessment, which allowed this.
5. Possible Control Measures
5.1 A paper on possible control measures for AI was discussed. It was still a work in progress but that it would be published on the Defra website as soon as possible.
5.2 The main comments on the paper were:
- Some queried the policy on the isolation of poultry. It was suggested that the status of free range poultry brought into isolation needed to be finalised before this step could be agreed. It was explained that the status of free range meat and organic eggs and meat would be discussed at a Commission Management Committee later this month.
- The issue of compensation for organic birds that lose their organic status was raised. The Government was liable to pay compensation under the Animal Health Act 1981 for birds that were subject to compulsory slaughter. Healthy birds (i.e. birds not showing clinical signs of disease) would be eligible for compensation.
- Several commented on the bullet points regarding the Control Movements of poultry.
5.3 The Chair thanked stakeholders for their initial comments and reminded them that they could forward formal comments to Simon Hewitt.
6. Guidance to poultry keepers on assessing risks at premises where poultry are kept.
6.1 The paper looked for a compromise between the accuracy and simplicity of the message. The guidance would need to be publicised in the poultry specialist press if it were to reach all those who kept birds.
6.2 Stakeholders were invited to comment on the paper and how best to manage the risk assessment. The main points were:
- It was agreed that an obligatory risk assessment of back yard flocks would aid the design of poultry database.
- Worker protection issues were a major concern for many. Expert advice agreed with the industry on worker protection was to be agreed on 20th October.
- Some felt that this risk assessment was aimed at larger poultry producers and not back-yard flocks. The wording needs to be revised.
- Stakeholders gave their support for the document and agreed to help promote it.
7. Poultry Biosecurity leaflet.
Stakeholders were asked for their comments on the biosecurity leaflet. The main points were:
- The leaflet needed more practical advice on dealing with sick and dieing birds.
- Some of the language of the document only addressed commercial premises; it needed to be changed to address back-yard flocks. The Defra team would revisit the leaflet to look at the target audience and their associated risk.
- The Department of Health had produced a simple leaflet on pandemic flu / infection control. Several stakeholders requested copies.
8. Communications Strategy.
The AI Communications Strategy addressed the issue of lack of accurate information and aimed to give a sense of proportion to the issue. It addressed the public’s fear and confusion about the disease by explaining the risk assessments, mechanics of the disease and mechanics of humans contracting the disease. Defra would circulate a revised draft in the light of stakeholder comments.
9. Any Other Business.
9.1 Stakeholders asked what the current Defra policy was on vaccination. It was due to be discussed shortly after that meeting at the Disease Expert Group. There is provision in the Diseases of Poultry (England) Order 2003 for the imposition of a compulsory vaccination zone. However, in view of the limitations of vaccination, it was not expected to be part of the current GB avian influenza control strategy.
9.2 The Chair thanked the stakeholders for the contributions and reminded them that they could submit their comments on the papers discussed quickly following the meeting.
Page last modified:
November 14, 2007 13:36