Cattle Skin Disorder: Agriculture Minister Affirms Livestock Slaughter and Vaccination Measures
In a significant development, the French Ministry of Agriculture has unveiled a strategy to combat the Contagious Nodular Dermatosis (CND), also known as Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD), which was first confirmed in a Savoie farm on June 29. The strategy, however, has sparked controversy and concerns, with unions questioning its drastic measures and the lack of transparency in communication.
The strategy, validated by the National Committee for the Orientation of Animal and Plant Health Policy (Cnopsav), except for one member, includes a combination of vaccination in risk zones, set to begin next week, and the "depopulation" of entire herds at the slightest detected case. This approach, while recognised as an effective means to eliminate the virus, has raised ethical, economic, and animal welfare concerns.
Farmers face the complete loss of their herds, a blow that represents years, if not generations, of breeding, investment, and livelihood. The lack of compensation schemes that fully cover market value or future income exacerbates their losses. The mass culling of healthy and infected animals alike is distressing to both farmers and the public, particularly when alternatives such as vaccination exist and are used elsewhere.
Moreover, farms undergoing depopulation may be barred from restocking for an extended period, further impacting rural economies and food supply chains. Critics argue that depopulation should not be the only tool in the disease control arsenal, especially as LSD is non-zoonotic and does not pose a direct risk to human health.
The controversy also surrounds the question of how LSD entered France. The outbreak in Savoie occurred shortly after new LSD cases were detected in Sardinia, Italy, leading to speculation about possible cross-border transmission via livestock movements. This has led to calls for stricter controls on animal imports and heightened surveillance at borders, as well as criticism of existing biosecurity protocols.
The speed and severity of the response have sparked debate among farmers, veterinarians, and the public. Some feel that the decision to depopulate was made without sufficient consultation or transparency, while others worry that delayed detection may have allowed the virus to spread undetected before the first case was confirmed.
In response to the criticism, the Ministry of Agriculture has ordered vaccine doses from the European Commission's vaccine bank. However, the strategy's reliance on vaccination has been slow to materialise, with farmers blockading veterinary services from carrying out the slaughter of animals.
The organisations Coordination rurale and Confédération paysanne are orchestrating the rebellion against the slaughtering, with farmers preferring to see herds confined during the incubation period rather than witness the slaughter of entire herds. Farmer Pierre-Jean Duchêne in Entrelacs, Savoie, refuses to see 121 cows die for only 2 recorded cases on his farm.
Minister Annie Genevard has expressed her commitment to supporting farmers affected by the disease. On July 16, she published a strategy to combat CND, which also includes a 20-kilometer zone around affected farms for further restriction of cattle movement and a 50-kilometer zone around identified CND cases for vaccination.
The situation underscores the tension between rapid disease control and the need for more nuanced, sustainable approaches in animal health crises. As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether France will shift its strategy towards a more balanced approach that prioritises both disease control and the long-term sustainability of the livestock sector.
The science community and general news outlets are abuzz with debates on the French Ministry of Agriculture's strategy to combat the Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD), with concerns about the ethical, economic, and animal welfare implications of the set 'depopulation' process. Despite the strategy's recognition as an effective virus elimination method, the approach has sparked controversy in the health-and-wellness and politics realms, particularly due to its potential impact on rural economies, food supply chains, and the lack of sufficient compensation.
