There has been widespread, misleading media coverage about the impact of badger culling on lowering Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) disease levels in high risk areas of England. Coverage includes in the Times and Independent.
The articles cite a report in the Veterinary Record, written by anti-cull activists, claiming that licensed culls have “been ineffective in reducing bTB in cattle herds”.
Experienced scientists from the Government’s Animal and Plant Health Agency have reviewed the report and found its analysis is scientifically flawed. It has manipulated the data in a way that makes it hard to understand the actual effects of badger culling and therefore its conclusions are wrong.
Today, the Chief Veterinary Officer, Christine Middlemiss, and Chief Scientific Adviser, Gideon Henderson, have also published a letter in Vet Record, which rebuts the report’s claims. The CVO has also written a blog about this here.
A proper inspection of publicly available data would have shown clear declining trends in disease following the start of culling which is not seen in areas without culls. For example, we have a reduction in officially TB free withdrawn herd incidence of 45% in the third year of culling and 50% in the fourth year of culling.
These findings have also been corroborated by the Downs et al study, published in 2019, which demonstrated that the cull has resulted in significant reductions in the spread of the disease to cattle, showing reductions of 66% and 37% in the two areas analysed.
A Defra spokesperson said:
This paper has been produced to fit a clear campaign agenda and manipulates data in a way that makes it impossible to see the actual effects of badger culling on reducing TB rates. It is disappointing to see it published in a scientific journal.
The Government has been clear it does not want to continue the cull indefinitely, which is why we are issuing new intensive cull licences for the final time this year. We are transitioning away from intensive culling to focus on badger vaccination, improved on-farm testing and cattle vaccination when available.
27 comments
Comment by Dr Richard Meyer posted on
As someone who has been interested in this subject since the start of the badger offensive in the mid-1970s, and studying it from the mid '80s onwards. With a PhD in applied zoology from one of Europe's leading universities (Glasgow) and an ex-member of the Government's own Consultative Panel, I hope I will not be dismissed as a 'fake' scientist or 'anti'.
My length of interest has enabled a much longer tern view, I suspect, than many of the Defra 'experts' who sneeringly dismiss the authors of the Vet Record paper who I know are similarly experienced.
The statistic furore is interesting academically but does not affect one iota the fact that the badger campaign has, from start to now, had only a negative effect of bTB in cattle, Negative, insofar as it has allowed farmers and their paymasters - the government - to take their eye off the ball, i.e. the endemic nature of the disease within the national herd.
It was not 'national' before the badger cull began: when it was effectively limited to a small puddle drying up in the far south-west - where I lived then. This was testimony to the (whole herd) test-and-slaughter policy pre-badgers. Since then, I have seen the badger holocaust rip through England. So much so that I wrote a book about it, published in 1986. This book 'The Fate of the Badger' was re-published 30 years later in 2016 simply because nothing had changed in all that time, except for the madcap concentration on the badger. Incidentally, the book has received no criticism from any ministry official.
If something doesn't work, stop it! If you don't learn from history, you keep on making the same mistakes. In successive government incarnations (under MAFF and Defra) you have pursued a failed policy in increasing desperation to justify the colossal expense and crime enacted on a supposedly protected species.
Why? Because you cannot dare to admit failure. A brave and honest government would admit its mistake, and explain it to all the misled farmers. Only in that way, can it avoid its Putin-like onslaught on one species whose only 'crime' is that it happens to big, noticeable and relatively easy to trap and shoot.
Comment by Sue Wilson posted on
The Langton paper is not "flawed" - it most clearly demonstrates that, irrespective of the year of the start of the badger cull, there is no significant difference between culled and unculled regions 2013. After all these years of wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of an iconic and sentient wildlife species, we might expect to see a clear scientific demonstration of a decline in herd breakdowns which cannot just be attributed to improved cattle measures. Furthermore, there is (to my knowledge) no published positive evidence that infected badgers are, or have ever been, the cause of TB breakdowns in cattle herds in the HRA or elsewhere in England; there is, however, recent published and peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary (e.g. Rossi et al. 2021; https://DOI:10.1111/1365-2664.14046). Repeatedly stating that badgers are a “reservoir” of TB doesn’t make it true. Badgers appear to be only a “spill-over” host of bTB, most likely contracting it from TB-infected cattle slurry and excreta contaminating the environment.
Comment by Deanna Austin-Crowe posted on
DEFRA admit in this rebuttal that improved cattle testing is needed. Why have DEFRA not already rolled out improved cattle testing then? Why have they not taken all practical measures to reduce the spread of bTB disease as is their duty?
Comment by Sue Wilson posted on
The Langton paper is not "flawed" - it most clearly demonstrates that, irrespective of the year of the start of the badger cull, there is either no significant difference between culled and unculled regions 2013-19. After all these years of the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of an iconic and sentient wildlife species, we might expect to see a clear scientific demonstration of a decline in herd breakdowns which cannot be attributed to improved cattle measures alone.
Furthermore, there is (to my knowledge), only "modelling", but no positive evidence that infected badgers are, or have ever been, the cause of TB breakdowns in cattle herds in the HRA or elsewhere in England; there is, however, recent published and peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary (e.g. Rossi et al. 2021; https://DOI:10.1111/1365-2664.14046).
Repeatedly stating that badgers are a “reservoir” of TB doesn’t make it true. Badgers appear to be mainly a “spill-over” host of bTB, most likely contracting it from TB-infected cattle via slurry and excreta contaminating the environment.
Comment by Deanna Austin-Crowe posted on
Who ultimately is accountable for the decision making around bTB disease cattle management, and who ultimately is accountable for he decision making around badger culling for disease management?
Comment by Deanna Austin-Crowe posted on
DEFRA have essentially commoditised a protected species by funding cull companies to kill them. DEFRA have created an entire industry around bTB in fact. What does DEFRA intend to do about the badger cull companies when finally public pressure forces a change of tack, do DEFRA/Natural England have plans to fund them from the public purse for other vested interests going forwards?
Comment by Mr R B Weeks. posted on
In reply.
“Experienced scientists from the Government’s Animal and Plant Health Agency have reviewed the report and found its analysis is scientifically flawed. It has manipulated the data in a way that makes it hard to understand the actual effects of badger culling and therefore its conclusions are wrong.”
Surely exactly the same argument could be applied to both the Downs and Brunton reports, which in themselves are complex and hard to understand. How many MPs are fully conversant with the applied logic which formulates the backbone of Governmental badger culling policy? A policy unsupported by expectant simplistic available evidence or devoid of a science base. One could almost say the waters have been deliberately mudded behind a veil of secrecy.
“It is disappointing to see it published in a scientific journal.”
It has every right to be published as a robust peer reviewed document that counters DEFRA’s tenuous argument. That makes it neither wrong nor unworthy of publication.
“The Government has been clear it does not want to continue the cull indefinitely, which is why we are issuing new intensive cull licences for the final time this year.”
The current status of the cull is that of expansion, while rhetoric could be construed as allowing for its continuance in some other form. If the Government genuinely wants to move away from culling stop it now. If not why not.
In my opinion this is a very weak defence, hastily produced in a counter to a robust piece of research where the independent authors with a high degree of professionalism have produced an overdue document scrutinising raw DEFRA data. An injustice has been done and in the absence of Governmental scrutiny and criticism from the appropriate responsible bodies so charged, it is only right and proper to challenge.
Comment by Mike Rendle posted on
A disgraceful smear levelled by DEFRA in a blatant attempt to denigrate this very compelling new evidence and unfairly impune the reputation and integrity of the authors. DEFRA has a history of misrepresenting science to justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of badgers at the behest of the powerful farming lobby. Former government Chief Scientist and President of the Royal Society Lord Robert May best summed up the government's badger culling policy when he described it as 'transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence'.
If DEFRA is as honest and transparent as it would have us believe, why does it refuse to disclose the minutes of meetings with the NFU ahead of the introduction of the badger cull in 2013?
Comment by Linda Griffiths posted on
My concerns are Defra implying that campaigners and activists are not high calibre professionals, Chris Packham and Caroline Lucas are prime examples of such people, if there was no injustice in the world, campaigning and activism would not be necessary.
Your allegations of manipulated data reflects badly not only on the authors and peer reviewers but on a highly reputable scientific journal.
You will recall from your database that I have arduously contacted you about publicly funded publications where misinformation, misrepresentation, and manipulation of data have been reported, non more than fictional risk pathways attributing the majority of breakdown to “ infected “ badgers, where none have been tested.
Furthermore, the study below regarding badger reservoirs in the Edge Areas of England is littered with uncertainties, yet the conclusion:
There is a recognised reservoir of infection in badgers across the High Risk and Edge Area
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2022-03-09.137337.h&s=Bovine+Tuberculosis+Disease+Control+section%3Awrans
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tbed.14272?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_WW9BDTBsvRycNDeePKbImjAAHvDMZuKjcGwyWtHv_T0-1635862290-0-gqNtZGzNAiWjcnBszQml
How can this data not be manipulated to support a predetermined outcome to support policy for current and future policy ?
I request Defra issues a public apology to all concerned.
Comment by Deanna Austin-Crowe posted on
I would suggest the levels of neglience demonstrated by DEFRA in their failure to fulfil their responsibilities for agricultural animal disease control need more than an apology. They admit in this rebuttal that improved cattle testing is needed, and this has been known for many years. That DEFRA have not to date done so is a grave concern.
Comment by Dr Brian Jones posted on
Where is the comment I submitted? Where are the comments many others have submitted? DEFRA's secrecy and unwillingness to admit the strength of opposition to the badger cull is shameful. DEFRA are seemingly determined to rely on a failing, unethical, costly and cruel TB control policy to save face and appease vested interests. By so doing, DEFRA are failing farmers by wasting public funds that could have been used to institute truly effective control measures.
Comment by Valerie Carolan posted on
So true. Defra just want to carry on with the same old policy when it clearly isn't working!
Comment by Graham Bottley posted on
Except that the cull is not failing.
The Vet Record has an Impact Factor of 2, so not "Highly Acclaimed"
The data has been manipulated.
Vet Record has not published the reviewer comments
The paper is a joke, written by fake scientists.
Yes, they manipulated data from DEFRA and APHA.
Comment by Sarah R posted on
And your evidence for these bizarre assertions Graham is....?
Comment by Deanna Austin-Crowe posted on
Why have moderators approved this comment?
Comment by Deanna Austin-Crowe posted on
How is it moderators have allowed this comment by Graham Bottley which cannot fit suitable moderation criteria?
Comment by Deanna Austin-Crowe posted on
Please explain how it is possible to manage bTB in cattle using as standard a skin test that is known to leave up to 50% infected cattle spreading disease and contaminating the environment? Why is improved cattle testing (blood testing) not being used to properly manage this disease, and surely all the time DEFRA choose not to do that, they are enabling the onward spread and contamination by infected undetected cattle? Or do you deny that the bTB cattle skin test is, as reported by a number of reputable sources, unfit for purpose?
Comment by Sarah Reisz posted on
This 'rebuttal' is shameful, disingenuous and incorrect. The paper you refer to was written by vets and an ecologist and was peer reviewed (unlike the Downs study you refer to). On the Farming Today programme today Prof James Wood claimed that the authors did not have data thatAPHA held but was not publicly available and therefore 'couldn't draw conclusions' - but that APHA shoudl now conduct a full anlysis- Now you say all the data was publicly available after all. Perhaps you should agree on the story!
Further why on earth did Defra think it was OK to make claims about culling reducing TB in cattle when it had not carried out a proper peer reviewed analysis itself? If it did, where is that analysis and why doewsn't Prof Wood know about it?
Comment by Piers Courage-Jones posted on
Surely DEFRA are as guilty of misrepresenting data to push and support their own objectives.
For instance, Geronimo the Alpaca was slaughtered on tests that had not been validated in healthy Alpacas that had received multiple tuberculin injections beforehand. The research DEFRA relied on was based on research findings in Cattle and Deer, not Camelids and the author who carried out a review of the tb literature clearly stated the results cannot be extrapolated to Camelids, as per the June 2021 review.
Furthermore, DEFRA had provided to me on writing they have no intention of carrying out tests to validate the efficacy of the current skin tests in healthy Alpacas who have received multiple tuberculin injections even though one of your Senior tb advisors suggested this would need to happen.
Additionally, another DEFRA tb advisor stated and it was recorded a few years ago that she know about Alpacas that were inextricably turning positive to a tb skin test after receiving an injection of tuberculin beforehand. The facts really do matter and if you are going to start trying to destroy peer reviewed research and the Authors, please ensure your own research is without reproach and has also been peer reviewed, which I understand the June 2021 review was not.
Comment by Valerie Carolan posted on
Seems to me that Defra don't have a clue what they're doing as far as Tb is concerned.
Comment by Piers Courage-Jones posted on
Yes, but the research has been through a thorough peer review. The Downs research was published in 2019 based on data from 2013 to 2017 - why and how did the researchers select only two areas for statistical validation?
Comment by Graham Bottley posted on
No, it has appeared in the journal. We do not know whether it was peer reviewed, who by or what they thought of it.
Comment by John posted on
It seems highly hypocritical of Defra to state that this new, peer reviewed publication has manipulated the "data in a way that makes it impossible to see the actual effects of badger culling on reducing TB rates". This entire cull policy has been designed without scientific controls in place, or independent overview, making it near impossible to ascertain any effect of culling. Defra's own publications, including Downs and the Godfrey Review, all state the difficulties of drawing conclusions due to other control methods being employed, the changes to risk area allocation, reduction of buffer / comparison sites due to the expansion of culling etc. This rebuttle would not stand up in a high school debating panel, so to write this regarding a policy which has such high costs for tax payers money as well as our ever-dwindling natural biodiversity, is an insult.
Comment by Nigel Miller posted on
Again, the number of new herd incidents in England has increased in almost all areas since the culls started whilst the number in Wales has decreased with no culling. It's all right here in your own publication. Do you deny this ? https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06081/SN06081.pdf
Comment by Nigel Miller posted on
There are several ways to disprove your response but I'll simply ask you a question.
In August 2013, DEFRA and Owen Paterson stated that over 28,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2012 due to bovine TB.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/badger-cull-piloting-controls-on-bovine-tb
Fast forward to October 2021 and the number of cattle slaughtered in England in 2020 due to bovine TB was still over 28,000 per page 67 of:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027591/tb-epidemiological-report-2020.pdf
This is despite the number of cattle in England decreasing during this period. These are your own statistics. So explain to me how culling is working ?
Comment by Dr Brian Jones posted on
The authors of the seminal paper on the low impact of badger culling on bovine TB incidence/prevalence are described by DEFRA as "anti-cull activists", while scientists from the Government’s Animal and Plant Health Agency are labelled "experienced". Perhaps a comparison of actual contributions to science of the two groups would reveal the former to be the greater authority. The Middlemiss/Henderson letter presents a graph with no data but presumably the promised in depth analysis comparing culled and not culled areas will appear eventually. Hopefully the delay will not be as protracted as that in reporting the DEFRA response to Godfray or the 2021 badger cull figures. It should be noted that the current issue of Vet Record also includes much more balanced commentaries from Loeb and Torgerson.
Comment by Linda Griffiths posted on
Is Defra saying campaigners are not credible people? If so, this statement also extends to the peer reviewers who all approved the final manuscript accepted by a highly acclaimed scientific journal. If data had been manipulated surely it would have been flagged during the peer review and editing stages ? If Defra resorts to smear campaign tactics what does it say about the integrity of their scientists and statisticians ? Furthermore, Langton et al used all the raw data available extracted from Defra and APHA documents in the public domain cited in the study and supplement.