Avian influenza (Bird flu): Avian Influenza Stakeholder meeting, 23 August 2005
| David Dawson (Director AHW) Fred Landeg (Deputy CVO) Simon Hewitt (EDPC) Graham Lewis (EDPC) Julian West (EDPC) Clare Sylvester (Legal) Nick Coulson (IAH) Denise Hart (CD) Richard Drummond (VEXDD) Paul Gayford (NEZD) Charmaine Govindasamy (SVS HQ) |
Duncan Prior (LPD) Paul Bullen (LPD) Bruce Pattern (LPD) Mark Reed (EDPC) Howard Hellig (Consultant BPC/BEIC) Máire Burnett (BPC) Maria Ball (NFU) Charles Bourns (NFU) Mark Williams (BEIC) Louisa Platt (BEIC) |
1 Introductions
- David Dawson thanked attendees for coming to the meeting at such short notice.
2 Current state of play
- The Dutch decision to house free-range birds will affect 400-500 farms.
- Germany is still considering what action, if any to take.
- Avian Influenza in Russia and the emerging issues will be an Agenda item at the EU Technical Working Group meeting on 25 August.
- It was agreed that there was a need for an effective communications strategy.
- The Dutch poultry industry has 1% organic and 16% free range not as previously stated.
- The question of housing free-range birds is not just a commercial issue, but also one for backyard flocks.
- It was agreed that it is a challenge to get the right message across, as the press seem to link HPAI, LPAI and human pandemics together, which causes confusion.
- There are no details of any confirmed outbreaks of Avian influenza west of the Urals.
- Although migratory bird experts are providing information, there are always a number of unknowns, such as climate changes, birds being blown off course. There was also a theory that HPAI could not be carried a great distance by migratory birds, as they would die along the way. Disease spread may also take place by other means e.g. road and rail.
3 Risk Assessment
- When developing a risk assessment there is a need to understand which birds pose a risk for us and what the birds do when they are here.
- Information is always being gathered to update the risk assessment.
- Russia is not an EU approved country for import of live poultry and specified poultry products. The risk assessment details the banned products.
- The risk is currently low, but Defra will continue to monitor developments and produce updated risk assessment if required.
- The industry were encouraged to help in updating risk assessments to ensure that they are based on sound information and that there needed to be a framework where views could be exchanged.
- In the event of changed circumstances, a joint approach was agreed to decide on what appropriate steps should be taken.
4 Possible control steps
Practicality
- The initial industry view was that it was not practical to move birds’ in-doors and prevent contact with wild birds. Overnight would be all right, but 24 hours a day would cause welfare problems.
- Alternatives to bringing birds indoors need to be considered, such as not feeding and watering outside.
- There would be merit in considering whether free-range producers should be obliged to have a contingency plan, such as roofing or fences for use if an emergency arises or the risk level changed to bring birds indoors.
- The issue of adding to the AI survey details of facilities at free-range establishments, to ascertain a true understanding of whether the free range industry could house birds if necessary was raised.
- The industry therefore accepted that at the current level of risk, it was not necessary to house free-range poultry.
Proportionality
- Any action taken over and above Directives and our existing domestic legislation needs to be proportionate.
- Addressing backyard flocks is difficult; there is merit in considering a publicity campaign outlining precautions, which could be taken to avoid AI, geared towards them.
Trade and welfare implications (e.g. free range or organic status)
- The Dutch have acted unilaterally.
- If there was a veterinary instruction to bring birds indoors, it is likely this could impact upon the trade in birds and their products, This was an issue, which required further thought.
Legality
- Domestic legislation may not allow us to copy the Dutch action in the absence of actual disease.
- It is also questionable if we could use general powers under the Animal Health Act.
- Need to consult the EU to ensure that there is a co-ordinated preventative regime across Europe if necessary.
- We do not know the legislative ground under which the Dutch decision to house birds is based.
Exit strategy
- If the UK had disease and eradicated it, then this is a clear exit strategy. However, if measures were imposed at the moment, it is not clear what the exit strategy would be as the level of risk is reasonably constant.
5 Worker safety
- There are on-going discussions with the Department of Health, regarding issues to protect all people who could come into contact with diseases birds.
- If there was a confirmed outbreak, consideration would be given for workers to be vaccinated with current human vaccine to prevent resortment.
- H5N1 vaccines in development may be available in the next 12 – 18 months.
- Personal Protective Equipment should be used by all workers working with AI infected birds, although industry believe that some workers will not consider this enough.
- There was concern that Government assurances do not give enough confidence and that all workers in the bird industry and their immediate families should be routinely protected against AI.
- Defra would consider the industry’s views further with the Department of Health.
6 Basic industry information and surveillance
- There is on-going surveillance, in that if there was mass mortality of wild birds the VLA would look into it, VLA does virus isolation, which might pick-up AI, and there is the annual LPAI survey.
- There is a need for better information on where poultry were, how they are kept and what the pattern of movements is. For example, aalthough information is held on laying flocks, there is no information on broiler flocks.
- Industry confirmed that they would need to consult their members, but were concerned about personal data, but will take the message back that that any information would be confidential and for a specific purpose.
7 Next steps
- It was agreed that it was a constructive meeting, which identified shared objectives and an agreed way forward.
- There will be continuing dialogue to ensure we are best prepared to meet any heightened risk of disease or any future outbreak.
- Need to continue to review together the assessment of the risk of AI in the UK, but are content that the risk remains low and there is no need at this stage for the industry to be asked to bring free-range birds indoors.
- Need to discuss jointly what steps might be appropriate in future, in different circumstances to respond to changes in levels of risk.
- Decide when Defra and key stakeholders should meet again to take forward the issues we have already identified and possibly involve a wider circle of stakeholders.
- Defra will develop a core brief and ensure that things are easily reached on the website.
- A few key lines to take will be produced following the meeting to ensure that Defra and industry take forward the same message.
Page last modified:
November 14, 2007 13:38