Morality and foot and mouth disease

FMD and morality

by R. Eric Swanepoel

*Views expressed here are my own and not necessarily shared by friends,
relatives or colleagues.*

Introduction

My thesis is simple and has two strands. Firstly, science and economics
were conceived as tools at the service of the greater good of humanity.
They should remain subservient to morality; morality should never give
way to so-called economic or political "necessity". Secondly, the
current strategy for dealing with foot and mouth disease is failing by
any reasonable criterion.

The killing of millions of animals (largely healthy) and the
destruction of their carcasses, in a world where many are dying of
hunger and poverty is clearly immoral. Why is this happening, and what
are the alternatives?

It is all too easy to point fingers at the failings of some of our
farmers, our politicians and our veterinary services, but the roots of
the problem lie both further afield and nearer home. Before looking at
these I want to deal with the red herring of vaccination.

Vaccination

The argument is made that our export trade would be damaged should
animals be vaccinated, as vaccination does not produce 100 \% immunity,
vaccinated animals cannot be differentiated from those potentially
harbouring the disease, and British agricultural exports would be
banned as long as there was some doubt as to its safety. There are
several counter-arguments to this anti-vaccination position, only one
of which need be true to invalidate it:

(a) Newer vaccines are being developed, I believe, which would allow
vaccinated animals to be differentiated from previously infected ones.
More money could be injected into their development. (Pardon the
pun!)

(b) Vaccination does not need to be 100 \% effective to stop a disease
in its tracks. Once a certain proportion of animals is immune to a
disease it can no longer spread. If people were still concerned about
hidden infection then a limited cull of vaccinated animals near a
previous outbreak would solve this.

(c) British agricultural earnings count for a very small proportion of
GDP compared to tourism, which has suffered, some argue, ?12 billion
damage! We are not primarily an agricultural economy. Some argue that
we could afford to lose the earnings from livestock-related
exports.

(Another point to be made on the side is that the risk of people
acquiring infection, even from eating FMD-positive meat, is tiny, and
the risk of being significantly ill even less.) The third point above
leads nicely to a more fundamental issue: the way world trade
operates.

World trade

All the above arguments tacitly assume that world trade regulations are
set in concrete, and the first two also assume that it is imperative
that we continue to export livestock products.

The World Trade Organisation and the European Union promote so-called
"free trade". What this means is that countries are obliged to open
their borders to products from other countries, to some extent
regardless of the quality of these products. The USA attempts to push
its arguably hormone-tainted beef - and GM crops for that matter - down
European throats. Many European countries have lower animal welfare
standards than we do, but we are obliged to import their products.
British farmers have to meet higher welfare standards but competition
on the basis of price constantly pressures them to test the lower
limits of these standards. Indeed, the current outbreak of FMD was very
much related to low welfare standards on a pig farm, and to the lax
regulation of the long-distance transport of livestock. This is
immoral. We should raise the welfare standards in this country, support
our own newly ethical farmers, and unilaterally ban the import of
products from countries with lower standards.

But this flies in the face of international regulations, you say, and
we will be subjected to international boycotts! European farmers and
fishermen are notorious for flouting international regulations and
getting their own way. Petrol price protestors were effective in the
UK. Such people have won even on issues where their moral position has
been questionable, and I believe that when a clearly moral view is
backed by the majority of the public it will prevail against all odds,
and that the world needs, and inevitably will follow, a strong ethical
leader.

You may also argue that this is all very well, but it would push up the
cost of animal products and the poor would disproportionately suffer!
That is a separate argument - poverty is the single most important
issue on the planet and must be addressed as a priority. The hugely
iniquitous distribution of wealth both within and between countries is
also very much related to globalisation and free trade.

Personal responsibility

Although more and more people are becoming aware of the anti-democratic
and malign forces at work under the aegis of globalisation and free
trade, and are becoming involved in the fight against these forces,
many more will need to join in before we will obtain significant
reform.

There are several reasons for people's lack of involvement. Firstly
many are simply bored, or turned off, by such issues. This is a matter
of education, and of them discovering how these issues directly impinge
on their lives, as they most certainly do. Secondly, people are turned
off by the reported violence and anarchy of anti-globalisation
demonstrators. I have it on very good authority (from first-hand
witnesses) that the media (and who controls them?) have significantly
distorted such events as the protests in Seattle and Genoa. They
consistently under-report the often extreme and provocative violence of
the police and focus on the (often secondary and retaliative) acts of a
minority of protestors. Thirdly, many people feel helpless - their
little bit won't make any difference! This is demonstrably false. Shell
was stopped from dumping an oil rig by public protest, and there are
many more such examples. I suggest we all boycott Esso-Exxon for their
opposition to the Kyoto greenhouse gas protocol. And on the foot and
mouth issue (after all, this is what this essay is ostensibly about!)
how about putting your thoughts on a discussion thread on this site, or
writing to your MP? Buy meat and animal products produced locally and
certified to be from humanely reared and slaughtered animals.

Politicians, economists and scientists are our servants, not our
bosses. Business people are entirely at our mercy, should we act
decisively. Tell them what to do, or else... Let's put an end to the
disgraceful shambles of foot and mouth disease for once and all. (And,
by the way, I'm a vet!)

(For a more humorous approach to foot and mouth disease, see:
http://www.abctales.com/abcplex/viewStory.cgi?s=5858

For more on free trade, please see my essay on this site:
http://www.abctales.com/abcplex/viewStory.cgi?s=500 and for books on
the subject I suggest you start with Anita Roddick's inspiring
biography Business as Unusual. You could also read No Logo by Naomi
Klein. My newly finished and as yet unpublished novel, The Computer
Ager, offers my suggestions for a complete strategy of dismantling the
corporate stranglehold on the planet. You may read extracts from the
first few chapters of an early draft on this site:
http://www.abctales.com/abcplex/viewStory.cgi?s=6117 A publisher is
sought.)