The social impacts of TB

You may have seen this film about a TB breakdown and the effects TB has on one farmer.



Since Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001 there have been a number of studies of the emotional effects of animal disease upon farmers. Perhaps the most famous is by Maggie Mort and her colleagues at Lancaster University. You can read the paper which was published in the British Medical Journal here - http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7527/1234

There have been other studies looking at farmers' mental health associated with TB breakdowns. Defra looked at the long term impacts of TB breakdowns in this research - http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15201. The results showed that many farmers experiencing TB breakdowns had much worse levels of mental health than those whose cattle did not have the disease. In particular, dairy farmers that had suffered a large TB breakdown had the lowest levels of mental health, as opposed to beef farmers. In some cases, beef farmers whose cattle had TB actually had better mental health than those that did not.

There are many other studies of farmers and their well-being. But what the video and the Defra research suggests is that different farmers are affected in different ways. Partly this is down to the kinds of relationships that farmers have with their animals. In this paper - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016704000506 - Rhoda Wilkie describes four different degrees of attachment to cattle that farmers have. These may range from "attached attachment" where there are close relationships between animals and farmers, where individuals are recognised and given almost human qualities - often associated with hobby farming; through to "detatched detachment" whereby animals are not seen as sentient creatures and as pure commodities - perhaps the archetypal criticism levelled by some at "commercial" farmers. This may sound familiar, but what Wilkie shows is that these ethical relationships are not always stereotypical; the kinds of relationships between animal and farmer may vary at different times of the production process. As Wilkie points out "any animal, however, that deviates from the routine process of production can stand out from the herd, become individually recognised, have more meaning to the worker, and thus become more than ‘just an animal’".

In Chris Chapman's film, Dai Bevan falls into Wilkie's "concerned attachment" classification. Clearly there are longstanding relationships here going back many years. Does this mean that other commercial farmers do not share his grief over the loss of cattle from TB? There is no doubt that many farmers have found ways of learning to live with the disease - and there is no doubt that economically some types of farm business are disproportionately affected by TB restrictions - the kind shown in the film for example. It would be wrong to make generalisations about the emotional impact of animal disease - and the data on farmer wellbeing backs this up.

But as Wilkie's work and more recently Maggie Mort's work shows, these relationships vary over time. Particularly at the time of death, farmers are concerned to give their animals a "proper" death, as a means of respecting them. In Maggie Mort's work, Foot and Mouth created the wrong kind of death - it was death in the wrong of place. This disruption to the normal routines of farming death was part of what caused emotional distress to farmers. Some people like to wonder aloud why farmers get upset about animal disease "because their animals are going to die anyway". But understanding these different relationships between farmer and cattle, and the different times and places in which they occur, helps explain that conundrum.

Art and science are similar in many respects. Like all good science, Chris Chapman's film raises questions rather than provides answers. It points neither this way or that: the direction belongs to whoever is doing the interpretation. The crucial question is what is it that should be done about the social impacts of animal disease? Some of the previous research on the social impacts of FMD called for better mental health care of farmers and vets during times of crisis. But what form should this take and how could it be implemented? Other people may interpret the film as providing justification for particular policy options. Certainly, many of the comments around the film on twitter and youtube take the view that "something must be done", and that something is a badger cull. These people may also see the film performing the role of educating the public about the suffering that farmers experience in the hope that it persuades them to change their mind about a badger cull. But as Ive explained before, those beliefs are deeply engrained (and both sides of the debate), and are not easily changed by the communication of scientific knowledge: but it is interesting to think whether art rather than science achieves that. Finally, in raising questions about what to do about TB, does the film also raise questions about why it is a problem at all? Is it regulation rather than the disease that is causing the problem here? Does the film remind us that problems exist because people have decided that that they should be problems? Do the original reasons for making something a problem still apply?

Perhaps the biggest question that Chris's film should make us think about are what are the terms in which we intervene in animal disease, and in nature? Maybe the answer to that question would be a better guide to managing diseaes.

No country has eradicated TB without...

You'll hear this line often: "No country has successfully tackled bovine Tuberculosis without tackling the disease in the wildlife".

I could link to thousands of times this gets used by Defra's communications people and in speeches by Jim Paice.

The fact is that bTB has only ever been eradicated in modern times from one country - Australia. You can read about what it took to eradicate in this book - Beating the Odds in A Big Country. Perhaps the title of the book shows how difficult it was - and not simply about shooting some wild buffalo. The other country that is close to eradication is of course New Zealand.

Is it wise to generalise from two cases? Is it wise to generalise from two cases with completely different attitudes to wildlife and reasons for eradication than ourselves? If so, maybe there are some other catchy lines that Defra should be trotting out as regularly as the "no eradication without wildlife controls" line. Here are some:

- bTB has only been successfully eradicated in countries where the wildlife reservoir is (universally) perceived as a pest
- bTB has only been successfully eradicated when greater regulations have been placed upon farmers
- bTB has only been successfully eradicated when systems of risk based trading / incentives for responsible trading have been introduced
- bTB has only been successfully eradicated when the agricultural industry have paid for it
- bTB has not been successfully eradicated without farmers going out of business because of regulatory controls
- bTB has only been successfully eradicated when the farming industry are part of the governance of bTB
- bTB has not been successfully eradicated without spending a lot of money, not reducing the amount spent
- bTB has only been successfully eradicated when all stakeholders are in agreement
- bTB has only been successfully eradicated when there has been a clear and coherent plan in place
- bTB has only been successfully eradicated when politicians have been sidelined

I could probably think up some more, but you get the message. Maybe you could tweet me your own to @garethenticott