Barry Mason | ukwatch.net

House repossessions rising sharply

tim — Mon, 26 May 2008 21:22:50 +0000

Figures released by the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on May 9 showed a marked increase in homeowners facing court action for repossession of their homes. The figure of 37,740 for the last three months was an increase of 17 percent on the last quarter and a 20 percent increase on the figures one year ago.

Repossessions have risen in most of the English regions. The figures indicate that lenders are quicker to resort to the threat of court action. A press release issued by the housing charity Shelter explained that at the time of the last housing crisis in 1991, there were 2.5 court actions initiated for each repossession that went ahead. Last year the figure was five.

Adam Sampson, Shelter’s chief executive, stated: “The worst fears of thousands of homeowners are now becoming a tragic reality. Mortgage lenders should be helping homeowners stay in their homes, but with some, it’s a case of miss a couple of payments and you’ll find yourself in court.”

Shelter estimates the likely total number of repossessions this year will be around the 53,000. During 1993 at the height of the economic turndown, figures for repossession peaked at just under 60,000.

The Citizens Advice Bureau (a charity offering advice to people, especially on debt) issued a statement in response to the MoJ. It said: “We have seen a very sharp rise in the number of people coming to us with mortgage arrears, and evidence that in too many cases lenders are using court action as a first rather than last resort.”

A BBC2 “Newsnight” report by Paul Mason featured a regional breakdown of the figures finding a correlation between the numbers of repossessions and falling house prices. They showed an increase in repossessions of 23 percent in the West Midlands, 32 percent in Lincolnshire, 37 percent in South Wales and 44 percent in North Wales. In each case house prices in the regions were markedly down. The only region to buck the trend was London, where repossessions were slightly down and house prices were still rising.

Repossessions in Shrewsbury were up 111 percent, Haverford West up 91 percent and Skegness up by 76 percent. All were low income towns. Families who had struggled to get on the property ladder were now coming under pressure. Adam Sampson interviewed for the programme said that vulnerable families now being hit by job losses, sickness or marital break-up were under threat.

The programme made the point that the last time repossessions were as high was in the economic downturn of the early 1990s, but the big difference was that we are not seeing unemployment significantly rise yet. But it is clear that job losses are increasing. The Chartered Management Institute has just reported an increase in the number of managers who are being made redundant. The figure is up by three percent on last year.

Savings levels, which have historically been low in Britain, have fallen dramatically. According to a report from Call Credit, the reference agency, millions of families are using what savings they have to survive in the face of rising mortgage payments food and fuel costs.

Those who have no savings are sinking further into debt. Debt agencies report an increase in the number of professional workers in well-paid jobs who are turning to them for advice. Community Money Advice, a charity which provides advice throughout the UK, has experienced an 85 percent increase in clients.

“The rise is huge because of the big increase in middle class debt,” said Jane Elliot, coordinator of Transact the umbrella organisation for debt advice services.

For the moment those in well paid jobs are managing to hang on to their homes. But they are disappearing beneath a mountain of debt. A further increase in the number of repossessions is likely as the impact of the credit crunch deepens. Sections of the population who would once have thought of themselves as financially secure are increasingly being drawn into the morass.

A Shelter report issued in January of this year showed how the crisis in the finance industry is impacting on house repossessions. They note “dramatically rising house prices have made home ownership less affordable to the majority of first-time buyers,” which means people borrowing many multiples of income to finance the purchase.

The sub-prime mortgage sector is not as big in England as in the United States, but the report notes that “levels of repossessions in the sub-prime sector are 10 times higher than in the mainstream sector.”

The report also pointed out the growing trend of people with multiple debt problems re-mortgaging in an attempt to simplify and resolve their debts. The report says that “Households who are experiencing financial difficulty can face a barrage of aggressive marketing encouraging them to address their debt in some way. These arrangements are often debt consolidation loans … converting an unsecured, low priority debt into one that can result in the loss of their home…. Shelter advice workers report that the party seeking possession of the client’s home is increasingly a second charge lender whose charge on the property can amount to as little as a few thousand pounds.”

Figures issued by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) show house prices falling across the country, resulting from a fall in demand. Around 40 percent less mortgages were issued over the last year than over the previous year. The Halifax bank (a leading mortgage provider) is expecting prices to fall a further 10 percent over the next couple of years.

Ian Perry, a Rics spokesman, told the Independent, “The real issue is the collapse in the number of housing transactions, which has very real implications, not just for the property industry but also the high street and the wider economy.”

In spite of recent Bank of England interest rate reductions, mortgage lenders are becoming increasingly reluctant to sell mortgages to people, reflecting fear of the still ongoing impact of the sub-prime crisis in America which has led to the credit crunch and the severe tightening of money supply.

A recent BBC TV programme, “The Truth about Property,” explained that a year ago there were around 15,000 mortgage products on offer. Today the figure is 4,000. Also lenders are demanding big deposits and in most cases will not lend more than 90 percent of the value of the house. The programme featured Simon Elkin, married with two children and earning a good salary of £50,000-plus as a wedding photographer. He had savings and a good credit record, yet was unable to obtain a mortgage.

A growing phenomenon is the rise in so called Mortgage Rescue companies. They offer to buy houses from people in difficulty or under threat of repossession. The Shelter report says of these schemes that “advertising is often misleading, implying that borrowers can stay in their homes on a long term basis … the company will buy the property at a price far below full market value and rent it back to the former owners on an assured short hold tenancy that gives minimal security of tenure.”

Currently these types of schemes are unregulated. The tightening of the mortgage market is also affecting people who took out mortgages to produce rental income, which mushroomed over the last few years. Many people bought property as a secure income for the future. They are also subject to the tightening of the mortgage market and when mortgages are due for renewal end up with more expensive ones, often costing more than the incomes they get from rents. These properties can become subject to repossession, leaving the tenants with no home.

Attacks on the welfare state that began under Thatcher and were enthusiastically endorsed by Labour have hit housing provision. Currently mortgage holders, who through loss of job, illness, etc., are forced to turn to the state for financial support may be entitled to help from the Income Support for Mortgage Interest (ISMI) scheme. The Shelter report of January 2008 shows how this has been eroded. “This safety net was cut back in stages as a reaction to the rapid rise in claims,” the report explains, “during the housing market crash of the early 1990s. The ability of the current safety net to deal with the effects of economic recession, or a collapse of the housing market, is untested. Many fear that the current arrangements would lead to significant hardship and rapid rises in repossessions.”

When the government cut back on ISMI, the expectation was that people would be able to rely on Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance policies. But only a quarter of mortgages are covered by these insurance policies. Those without protection tend to be the less well-off. Also the report notes, “Payment protection insurance policies in general … have been criticised for being inadequate, because they do not cover many common reasons for falling behind with payments …”

Also under attack over the last three decades has been the provision of social housing. Currently around four million people are on the waiting lists of councils or housing associations. A Local Government Association (LGA) report published May 16 expects this to rise to five million by the year 2010 and that around 50 percent of councils cannot meet current demand.

“With the banks overstretching their credit facilities,” Paul Bettison, LGA chairman explained, “it could well mean that in the coming months councils will have to pick up the pieces as people end up on social housing waiting lists.”

A catastrophic housing crisis is unfolding, of which the government is fully aware. Labour’s housing minister, Caroline Flint, inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when a photographer caught details of a cabinet paper she was carrying. One line read, “Given present trends they will clearly show sizeable falls in prices later this year—at best down 5-10 percent year on year.”

English Primary Education Criticised

Ellie Keen — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:35:06 +0000

A major report has criticised the extent of testing imposed on primary school children in England and the trend to begin formal education at an ever-earlier age.

The report by the Primary Review, based at the Faculty of Education, Cambridge University, highlights how primary age children (under 11) in England are subjected to a regime of testing, testing and more testing—more so than their counterparts in other developed countries. It is part of an ongoing review of British primary education that is the biggest undertaken since the Plowden report was issued over 40 years ago.

The report noted the changes that have taken place in primary education in England since Plowden. One of the most significant is the reduction in the age that children start school from five years old to four. The number of primary schools has fallen by 3,000 in this period but the size of schools has increased by around 15 percent.

The report questions the assumed benefits of starting younger and having a longer school year. The authors say, “There is little evidence to support common-sense assumptions that spending longer in primary schools… results in higher attainment… The assumption that an early school starting age is beneficial for children’s later attainment is not well supported… and there are concerns about the appropriateness of provision for four-year-olds in schools.”

It is highly critical of the type of teaching meted out to four year olds when they first enter school. It notes, “It has been suggested that starting school at such a young age may be stressful for children… Several qualitative research studies have shown that young children’s opportunities to learn through play are curtailed in reception classes due to insufficient staff, lack of early years training, physical constraints… lack of equipment (especially sand and water and large play equipment) and adherence to primary school timetables.”

Under-fives are also to be subjected to a proscriptive curriculum and testing. Beginning in September of this year, The Early Years Foundation Stage will lay out standards to be reached in reading, writing and numeracy for under-fives. It prescribes no less than 72 learning goals.

The report also looked at the extent and level of testing used in English primary schools. From entering primary school, young children are faced with an assault course of testing. These include an assessment just seven weeks after beginning school, Key Stage 1 tests at the end of their second year and Key Stage 2 tests at the end of their sixth year. Children may also be subjected to additional tests at the end of years 3, 4 and 5.

The researchers compared the regime of testing in English schools to those in other parts of the United Kingdom, Europe and Japan. Whilst these other countries also set tests, the report comments, “The scale of assessment for the purpose of monitoring and accountability is of quite a different order in England compared to our other reviewed countries… There is more external, standard testing in England: it occurs more frequently and starts at a younger age; more subjects are covered by the statutory assessments; test results are published in league tables; testing is high stakes… assessment in England… is pervasive, highly consequential…”

The report on assessment in English schools concludes by stating that “the high-stakes nature of the assessments designed to make the system accountable compromises its potential benefits.”

Since the publication of the report last month, teachers and parents have joined in expressing concern about the pressure that the emphasis on testing is placing on children. John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, told the Independent, “The whole testing regime is governed by the need to produce league tables. It has more to do with holding schools to account than helping pupils to progress.”

Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, explained, “There are schools that start rehearsing for Key Stage 2 SATs [Standard Assessment Tests] from the moment the children arrive in September…other schools…rehearse SATs during Christmas week… They should be having the time of their lives at school, not just worrying about tests. It is the breadth and richness of the curriculum that suffers. The consequences for schools not reaching their targets are dire—heads can lose their jobs and schools can be closed down. With this at stake it’s not surprising that schools let the tests take over.”

An increasing number of parents are seeking alternatives to state primary schools. Around 50,000 children are being educated at home. A recent paper issued by James Conroy and colleagues at Glasgow University noted, “Both the numbers opting for home schooling and the range of motivations of those wishing to do so have expanded considerably in recent years. One substantial and growing group is comprised of those who have abandoned formal schooling because they believe it is too constrained.”

The new Early Years Foundation Stage will also apply to independent bodies offering childcare. Under the new curriculum every child will have to be tested at the age of five whatever kind of school they attend. The government will have the power to close schools, kindergartens or nurseries that do not comply with the Early Year Foundation Stage Curriculum. Even childminders who care for young children in their own home will be subject to the new curriculum.

It will in effect become illegal not to teach literacy and numeracy to under-fives. Parents at an independent Steiner school at Wynstone, near Stroud, Gloucestershire are opposed to its introduction. They are campaigning to force the government to exempt Steiner schools and kindergartens.

The Steiner schooling movement puts the emphasis on young children learning through play. Steiner kindergartens do not teach literacy or numeracy, which are not begun until the child begins school at the age of six.

At the same time the government is increasing fees for the registration of child care providers. A number of organisations involved in the care of under-fives recently wrote to the Times saying, “we are alarmed at the potential impact of these proposed increases upon parents and providers.”

Steve Biddulph, an Australian educational psychologist, speaking at a recent conference in London warned, “Forcing learning destroys that learning. It makes children go backwards. The harm may well be life-long,”

He cited evidence from an American study that showed that children’s language learning slows down in a formal academic setting, but speeds up the more they are allowed to interact through free play. The same relationship was observed in the development of children’s reasoning skills.

The government claims that its statutory approach is intended to ensure that children from poor backgrounds get the same educational start as children from better off families. Biddulph pointed out that this could be achieved more effectively through properly resourced programmes aimed at disadvantaged communities.

Penelope Leach, the childcare expert, called for home visits to assist disadvantaged families rather than a prescriptive approach.

Lilian Katz, Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, presented evidence demonstrating that children who are pushed to read and write at an early age do less well in later years. This was particularly true of boys, she said, arguing against a “hothouse” approach to education.

“Research suggests the benefits of formal academic instruction for four and five-year-olds seem to be promising when they are tested early,” Katz said, “but considerably less so in the long term. When these children are followed over a period of three or more years, those who had early experience in more intellectually engaging curricula were more likely to do well in school than their peers, who had early exposure to academic instruction.”

Beverley Hughes, Labour Children’s Minister, has dismissed the protests of parents, child psychologists and educationalists as “unrepresentative.”

The Cambridge report confirms the picture presented by last year’s UNICEF report, which showed Britain to be one of the worst countries amongst the most developed economies in which to be a child. The high level of risky behaviour of children in Britain was a reflection of the psychological impact of their experience of childhood. The pressure of constant testing and loss of esteem of children failing to reach set standards can only add to the psychological pressure being imposed on young children.

Terminally ill Ghanaian woman deported and denied medical care

JamieSW — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:30:15 +0000

Ama Sumani, a 39-year-old Ghanaian woman terminally ill with a malignant myeloma, was deported from Britain to Ghana on January 9. She was taken from the University Hospital, Cardiff, in Wales, where she was receiving dialysis treatment, as her kidneys were damaged by the myeloma. Five immigration officers put her on a flight from Heathrow to Ghana that day.

Ms. Sumani had first come to Britain in 2003; she enrolled as a student but was unable to finish the course and took a job. Taking employment contravened her student visa status. She flew to Ghana in 2005 to attend a memorial service for her late husband. On her return to Britain, her visa was revoked.

She became ill two years ago, and doctors say that without regular dialysis she has only weeks to live. A Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) spokesman claimed that “Part of our consideration when a person is removed is their fitness to travel and whether the necessary medical treatment is available in the country to which they are returning.”

Ms. Sumani attended hospital in Accra, the day after arriving in Ghana. According to reports by the BBC and Independent, the hospital in Accra will not provide treatment for her. The reports state British officials would provide funding for treatment for three months, but the hospital said that without funding for ongoing medical treatment, they would not be prepared to accept her as a patient.

Her lawyer Sara Changkee said: “It’s just so sad; her only future now is death.”

Annan Cato, Ghanaian High Commissioner in London, has made an appeal to the British government to allow Ms. Sumani to be returned to continue her treatment.

The treatment of the Ghanaian woman is one more example of the British government’s increasingly reactionary and punitive treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers.

The Independent on January 2 highlighted the case of Adedoyin Fadairo, a three-year-old girl who has been threatened with deportation to America. The child was born in the US but has lived most of her life in London with her grandmother and has no family in America.

The girl’s 32-year-old mother is also threatened with deportation, in her case to Nigeria. She has been held in the Yarls Wood detention centre and has been separated from Adedoyin for 10 months. Adedoyin has a kidney condition but is not entitled to medical treatment.

The case has been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which has ordered the British government to put the threat of deportation on hold whilst it considers the case.

The right of failed asylum seekers to receive medical treatment is currently restricted to emergency care and access to a general practitioner. Other treatments, including provision of antiretroviral drugs to babies born of HIV-infected women, are prohibited. The government’s Home Office and Health Department is due to publish a review imminently that will recommend restricting medical intervention to emergency care only.

The Labour government has taken an increasingly anti-immigrant stance since coming into office. The 2006/2007 annual report of the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC), published in April of last year, noted: “The increased use of charter flights (to facilitate deportations) is very worrying; there are now 5/6 flights a month.”

A BIA press release in November 2007 boasted: “Britain’s tougher border controls have led to the lowest level of asylum applications in 15 years…. [T]his year 45,000 people have been removed from the UK…[matching] the all time high of 2003…. Between January and September 2007 there were 16,520 principal asylum applications lodged, this represents a seven per cent fall in applications compared to the same period in 2006. It is also the lowest number of applications since 1992.”

In a fit of “you ain’t seen nothing yet” hyperbole, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said in a December press release, “People in Britain want to see changes to our immigration system and in 2008 we’ll see them. It’s the biggest shake up for 40 years.”

The plight of one of the most vulnerable sections of workers can only become more precarious.

Bird Flu Outbreak Confirmed; Government Cuts Funding

Tim Holmes — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:12:39 +0000

An outbreak of avian flu, reported November 12, amongst turkeys on a farm at Diss on the Norfolk and Suffolk border of Eastern England was confirmed as being the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain. The turkeys, geese and ducks on the farm, totalling over 6,000, were slaughtered. Within days a second farm owned by the same company, Redgrave Poultry, was found to be infected by the H5N1 disease, although it is about 10 kilometres from the original outbreak.

A protection zone and an extended surveillance zone have been put in place around the two infected sites, with a wider restricted zone covering Suffolk and most of Norfolk. To date nearly 70,000 birds have been slaughtered at six sites, some as a precautionary measure where no H5N1 cases were found.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the leading government body in monitoring and taking action in response to reported outbreaks of bird flu amongst wild or domestic birds. Its ability to perform the role is being undermined by budget cuts of more than £270 million.

A Guardian newspaper report noted, “The measures at Defra have become necessary, in part, because the department has been overwhelmed by huge bills for a series of disasters, from the foot and mouth outbreak to blunders over the payments of billions of pounds of EU cash to farmers. The ministry’s management board was told this week that it had to find an additional £270m from its main budget on top of savings agreed only a month ago.”

According to the Guardian Defra had cuts of £200 million imposed last year when the government agency failed to pay out on time the European Union subsidies to farmers.

The government minister in charge of Defra, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, has responded by downplaying public responsibility for the round of disasters that have hit Britain this year—foot and mouth, floods, blue-tongue and bird flu. “Is it unreasonable to ask the farming community to bear more of the cost of taking the decisions to deal with animal diseases?” he said.

The source of the current bird flu infection has still not been determined. Fred Landeg, the acting chief government veterinary officer, speaking at the time of the initial outbreak said, “It is too early to speculate how this virus got to these premises, but the initial character of the virus suggests it is of Asian lineage closely related to strains found this summer in the Czech Republic and Germany. It does suggest the possibility of a wild bird source.”

Ornithologists have disputed that wild birds could be the source, saying none have been found in the vicinity and no reports of birds being found dead along migration routes. Dr Mark Avery of the British, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, (RSPB) said, “Jumping to conclusions over the source of bird flu could blind us to courses of action that should be taken.”

Nearly two weeks after confirming an H5N1 outbreak the source of the virus is still to be determined. An article in the Farmers Guardian explained that Defra “are working on at least two main theories … [one theory is] that an infected migrating bird or birds may have visited a lake at Redgrave Park Farm, not far from where its free range turkeys were kept, passing the virus on to domestic wild birds in the area or directly to the turkeys…. While there is little firm evidence to back the wild bird theory, it is understood the possibility of ‘sporadic’ infection in migrating birds has not been ruled out…. Another theory is that the outbreak may have been linked to imported birds or meat from Europe.”

The article explains that both Redgrave Poultry and its parent company Gressingham Foods import meat products from Holland and France, which are taken to a processing plant near Redgrave Park Farm. It notes, “Epidemiologists have been trying to trace the movements of people and vehicles involved in transportation of the young birds and meat, looking in particular at whether they have visited infected areas in Europe.”

An outbreak of H5N1 bird flu earlier this year at the Bernard Matthews turkey processing complex in Suffolk was suspected to have originated from meat imported from Hungary. The company was criticized for lapses in bio-security and poor maintenance of buildings.

The current worldwide H5N1 bird flu epidemic is still considered a strong candidate by scientists to jump the species barrier to humans and through mutation become contagious between human beings. According to the latest World Health Organization figures the number of humans having caught the H5N1 virus by close contact with birds with the disease is over 330, of which just over 200 have died.

If the virus were to mutate to allow human to human transmission, the fear is that the world could see a repeat of the 1919 flu pandemic in which around 40 million people worldwide died of the disease. Experts calculate that an epidemic of the present flu could kill up to 2.5 percent of infected people.

The government has just announced that it is stockpiling enough doses of the anti-viral drug Tamiflu to cover 50 percent of the population rather than the previous level of 25 percent. But experts have questioned whether Tamiflu would be adequate to deal with an H5N1-type epidemic in humans, suggesting that another drug Relenza should also be made available. Last year two people in Vietnam infected with H5N1 died after treatment with Tamiflu, rapidly building up a resistance to the drug.

Budget cuts, staff cuts and “rationalizations” along with inadequate preparations for a possible epidemic demonstrate an ongoing erosion of the physical and organisational infrastructure by the Labour government in line with its imposition of the dictates of big business.

UK Obesity Levels Highest in Europe

Tim Holmes — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:17:07 +0000

Two recent reports show the rapidly increasing levels of obesity in Britain. The Foresight project’s “Tackling Obesities: Future Choices” notes that the level of obesity in Britain has doubled over the last 25 years, with around a quarter of adults now obese.

Currently, around 10 percent of children are obese and a further 20 percent plus are overweight. The report’s projection for the future based on current trends is that by the year 2025, around 40 percent of the population will be classed as obese. For the year 2050, they predict 60 percent of men, 50 percent of women, half of primary school boys and a fifth of primary school girls will be obese. The cost to the health service of dealing with obesity will be seven times the current costs by 2050, and the wider cost to society will be around £45 billion.

The British government is fully aware of the gravity of the situation. Foresight is based in the Government Office for Science and describes itself as “A high-level stakeholder group, comprising senior decision-makers and budget-holders from relevant [Government] Departments, Research Councils and other organisations.” It acts as a think tank producing reports and information to advise the government, and its director is Sir David King, the government’s chief scientific adviser.

A second report, “The Health Profile of England 2007,” was published in October by the Department of Health. It shows amongst other things the north/south split in health, with worse outcomes in the north roughly correlating to the wealth divide. More people report their health to be “poor” compared to when Labour came to power in 1997. The death rates for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis have increased since that time.

The profile compares health in England with that in the rest of Europe. England has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies. The report confirms child obesity is on the rise, and that with a quarter of adults obese, England tops the European obesity charts. The rate of obesity is around twice that of Germany and two and half times that of France.

The government responded to the damning figures on obesity by dropping its previous target to eradicate childhood obesity by the year 2010 and instead making the year 2020 the target date.

The Foresight report’s conclusion is a bland nebulous one, stating, “Tackling obesity is fundamentally an issue about healthy and sustainable living for current and future generations. This is only likely to be achieved if there is a paradigm shift in thinking, not just by government but by individuals, families, business and society as a whole.”

Sir David King commented, “Stocking up on food was key to survival in prehistoric times, but now with energy dense, cheap foods, labour-saving devices, motorised transport and sedentary work, obesity is rapidly becoming a consequence of modern life.”

This attempt to shift responsibility away from the government was attacked by health experts. Peter Hollins, chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, said, “Repeated reports like this, which should have had alarm bells ringing in Whitehall long ago, have been met only by repeated pushes of the government’s snooze button. Combating childhood obesity was part of New Labour’s election manifesto in 1997.”

A pamphlet, “Missing the Target,” put out by the Children’s Food Campaign in October, notes that “the obesity crisis has become the nation’s most pressing public health problem…the Government has not yet taken the steps necessary to improve children’s diets.”

The foreword to the pamphlet makes the point: “This is the first generation of children predicted to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents because their lives are cut short by the consequences of obesity.”

A contribution to the pamphlet by the National Obesity Forum states, “The current projection that there will be one million obese children by 2010 is an utter disgrace. The major flaw in dealing with obesity so far is the government has concentrated more on cure than prevention. They must begin looking at halting obesity among pre-school children as a priority.”

The National Obesity Forum gives details from the Health Survey for England 1995 to 2004, which showed that “over a 10 year period, obesity in children aged two to 15 nearly doubled, from 11 percent to 19 percent in boys and 12 percent to 18 percent in girls…the proportion of younger children aged two to 10 classified as either overweight or obese rose to 28 percent, while for older children in rose to 40 percent.”

The forum also notes a survey showing that 77 percent of children who become overweight remain obese as adults. One serious consequence of childhood obesity is the onset of type 2 diabetes—diabetes associated with being overweight, as opposed to being hereditary. At one time, it was only found in adults, but is now being found in children. They also point out the correlation between poverty and obesity, with poorer children more likely to be obese.

The link between obesity and other diseases is brought out in two contributions to the pamphlet that show the increased risks of heart attacks, strokes and even cancer are related to obesity.

“Missing the Target” also brings out the role unhealthy “energy dense” food plays in obesity. Dr. Becky Lang of the Association for the Study of Obesity notes: “Data from highly controlled studies have shown energy dense foods increase energy intake. In real life, energy dense foods tend to be high in fat, often high in added sugars too, with a low fruit and/or vegetable content… This epitomises much of the fast food on offer in every high street…We need to recognise that the food environment in Britain today is tipped heavily in favour of over-consumption. Energy dense foods and large portions offer the cheapest cost/calorie option and they are heavily marketed… This may exacerbate existing health inequalities.”

The pamphlet also notes a Medical Research Council report showing that “the UK distribution of McDonald’s outlets correlates precisely with disadvantage.”

Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, of the British Medical Association, highlights the role of advertising, particularly TV advertising, in promoting “junk” food. The government acknowledged that many adverts for food high in saturated fat, salt and sugar are directed towards children. After discussions with Ofcom, the communications industry regulator, there has been a restriction of adverts for such foods on programmes directed at children. However, the restriction does not apply to many programmes that children actually watch.

A press release put out by the consumer group Which? in June of this year revealed that only 7 out of the top 50 popular TV programmes seen by children will be covered by the advertising restriction. A spokesperson said, “The new controls will clearly fail children as none of the programmes with the heaviest viewing figures for 14 to 15 year olds are covered. This leaves the food companies free to broadcast adverts for foods high in fat, salt and sugar at the times when they know the most children will be watching.”

The ability of children to exercise is also under attack. Crowded school curriculums have reduced sport and exercise periods. “Missing the Target” notes: “The National Playing Fields Association is still seriously concerned about a decline in the number of safe areas for children to play.” Most playing fields have been lost to house building, having been sold off to developers. A press release issued by the association in May stated: “Since 2000 the number of planning applications for development on community playing fields has increased by 103 percent. Thousands of sites, both large and small, for formal and informal activity have been lost in that time.”

Despite acknowledging the growing crisis and the devastating impact on children’s health, the Brown government is refusing to direct resources to what is a major public health issue or to take any action that would damage the huge profits of the food industry.

See Also:
US and UK worst places in developed world to be a child
[16 February 2007]
Obesity: a curable epidemic
[29 April 2000]

Foot and Mouth Strikes Again

Tim Holmes — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:26:49 +0000

Two cases of foot and mouth disease (FMD) were confirmed at the end of last week on two farms near the town of Egham in Surrey which lies close to London. The disease affects cloven hoofed animals including cows, pigs and sheep. A total of 940 cattle and pigs at the farms have so far been culled.

The two confirmed cases came just days after restrictions had been lifted following two previous outbreaks of FMD and the British government had declared an all-clear. Previous cases of the disease, at the beginning of August, had occurred within a few miles of the government laboratories at the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright in Surrey.

Recently published reports confirmed that Pirbright was the source of this last outbreak, and imply that the government were ultimately responsible for allowing a lax biosecurity regime to exist at the site for the last three years at least.

Tests on the virus involved in the new cases of FMD show it is the same strain as the one that escaped the Pirbright site. The two farms at the centre of the new outbreak lie 10 miles from the government site. It is not clear at the moment how the two recent infections broke out as they occurred after the normally accepted incubation period following the first cases.

While agriculture makes up only a small part of the British economy, farmers are politically vocal and will demand compensation for culled animals and lost trade. Closing access to country areas also hits tourism, now the third largest economic sector after finance and pharmaceuticals.

The issue is therefore regarded as serious for newly appointed Prime Minister Gordon Brown, especially as the Labour government seriously mishandled the major outbreak in 2001. Its slowness to respond then resulted in it being necessary to cull over 6 million farm animals with a total cost estimated at around £8 billion and with many small farms forced to close down. Another outbreak of the same disease—and more over one that can be traced to a government controlled research facility—is damaging.

Two reports on the recent outbreak confirm that the strain of FMD virus found at the affected farms in August is not currently in circulation in the wild. The reports, one produced by the government Health and Safety Executive and the other by Brian Spratt, Professor of epidemiology at Imperial College London, identify the virus as the one that was responsible for an outbreak in Britain in 1967. The virus was currently being used at the Pirbright research site.

The Pirbright site is licensed by the government to handle category four pathogens under the Specified Animals Pathogens Order (SAPO) 1998. Category four is the highest level under the act. It is the same level of biosecurity that is applied at the British government germ warfare research facility at Porton Down. For a breakdown of biosecurity to occur at a category four site could hardly be more serious.

Two organisations share the Pirbright site, the government-run Institute of Animal Health (IAH) with 140 staff and Merial Animal Health Ltd with around 80 staff. Merial is part of a global pharmaceutical company, with its headquarters in France. Its main operation at Pirbright is the volume production of veterinary vaccines.

Within the Pirbright site IAH and Merial are in separate facilities. Liquid effluent from each facility enters a storage tank where it is treated with citric acid to attempt to kill any live virus. This effluent then enters the drainage system and goes into a second common tank where it is treated with caustic soda to ensure any virus that escaped the first treatment is killed. Then after being stored in holding tanks for 24 hours it is pumped into the public sewage system.

The HSE report concluded: “It is likely that the live virus … entered the effluent drainage system from the Merial facilities during the period covered by our investigation.” It further concludes that because of the poor state of the drainage system, the live FMD virus was able to penetrate the immediate area around it. The report states: “This … is likely to have been either through overflowing of (the) manhole … or general leakage … or both.”

The ground at this time was subject to standing water as a result of prolonged heavy rain. The report notes: “Weaknesses were identified in the containment standard of the effluent drains across the … site … displaced joints, cracks debris build-up and tree root ingress.” The state of the manhole covers was also criticised.

The site is owned by the IAH, and is under the auspices of the government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which is headed by Environment Minister Hilary Benn. What came to light as the reports were published was that the state of the drainage system at Pirbright had been known about for four years. Channel 4 News was able to obtain a copy of a letter dated July 2004 from Merial to DEFRA outlining the problems with the drains.

Benn was forced to accept government responsibility, admitting that there is a longstanding dispute between Merial and IAH over who should meet the cost of repairs to the drains.

The HSE report further showed how the FMD virus was able to move from the soil around the pipes and get beyond the site boundary, concluding it was by contractors’ lorries. The report says, “We conclude that is likely that soil and/or materials contaminated with live FMD (virus) ... was removed from the Pirbright site between 20 and 25 July 2007 … it is likely that vehicles contaminated with this soil passed down Westwood Lane close to the affected farm.”

During the period covered by the investigation there were contactors on site both constructing new roadways within the site and doing preparation work for the laying of a new drainage system. The work included excavation around the drainage pipe leaving the Merial treatment sump. There was no permit-to-work system for undertaking digging around the discharge pipe. Around a 1,000 lorries came and left the site over the two-week period up to July 26 and yet there was no evidence of wheel washes or other cleaning methods being applied. The investigators were unable to trace all the lorries that had entered the site because many of the entries in the gatehouse log were illegible.

The state of the drainage system was responsible for the FMD virus leakage, but the investigators also uncovered other areas of concern. One was the canteen used by IAH staff that is run by an external contractor. There is a two-hatch system so that food can be passed through by kitchen staff to the restricted area of the laboratory and another hatch to pass crockery, waste food, etc., back to the kitchen area. The report notes, “This system is very unusual in high containment facilities and is accepted by both DEFRA and IAH management as not being ideal.”

The fabric of the main IAH building was described as “poor, with visible cracks in the walls and ceilings, and leak points around some windows.” There was also criticism of the ventilation system. Laboratories working with pathogenic organisms have a system of maintaining a negative air pressure within rooms compared to that outside to prevent airborne organisms being sucked out into the atmosphere. The HEA investigation showed “some individual laboratories could become positively pressurised … and there was leakage of air between laboratories through unsealed pipe ducting.”

While Foot and Mouth disease is not a serious danger to human beings, the outbreak has important implications. The level of biosecurity at Pirbright was clearly inadequate. Many animal diseases are dangerous to humans and the escape of another pathogen could have serious health implications. Pirbright has the same category four status as Porton Down where pathogens for germ war are studied and there is no guarantee that biosecurity is any better there.

Rigging Nigerian Elections

Tim Holmes — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:31:03 +0000

A BBC radio documentary on the events leading up to the independence of Nigeria, Britain’s former colony, charged the British government with interference in the election to ensure the result was in line with its interests (see “Rigging Nigeria”).

The programme cited two files held in the British National archives covering the period leading up to independence in 1960 that to this day remain closed to the public and will remain closed for another 50 years.

One file contains material relating to the governor general at the time of independence, Sir James Robertson, and the other material on Dr Azikiwe, known as Zik, who was leader of the nationalist pro-independence political party, the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC).

Mike Thomson, the investigator on the programme, spoke to Harold Smith who had gone out to work as a British Colonial Officer in the 1950s after graduating from Oxford University. Smith was based in the then capital, Lagos, working in the ministry of Labour, then headed by Festus Okotie-Eboh, a flamboyant politician who was treasurer of the NCNC. The NCNC was based in the Eastern Region of Nigeria. Under colonial rule the country was divided up into three regions, North, East and West.

One day Smith was given a secret file containing a minute that ordered him to get involved in regional elections taking place in the late 1950s in the run up to independence. He was to make vehicles, staff and other resources available to the NCNC colleagues of Okotie-Eboh who was standing in the elections. Smith was shocked at the request. He explained that the election had to be fixed because the plan was that the Northern region would hold power on independence.

Thomson asks, “Could an allegation of British government involvement to rig an election or at the least to favour a particular party be substantiated?”

He interviewed Professor David Anderson, Director of the African Studies Centre at Oxford University. Asked if such manipulation of an election result could have happened Professor Anderson replied: “In almost every single colony the British attempted to manipulate the result to their advantage…. I would be surprised if they had not done so.”

Nigeria’s Northern region constituted three quarters of the land mass of the country and had roughly half the population. Professor Anderson explained that the North, with its Islamist culture, was very conservative and had enjoyed a close relationship with its British colonial rulers. The British had ruled through the emirs.

The British government was concerned that the result of independence might lead to partition. They regarded the Northern region as a bulwark against opposition. Professor Anderson explained that British analysts at the time thought that West Africa as a whole with its high levels of poverty was highly vulnerable to communism.

The politics of the North was dominated by the Northern Peoples’ Congress Party (NPC). Britain was aware that the NPC would be unable to rule an independent Nigeria by itself and would need the support of a major party in the East or West.

This is why, explains Smith, he had been ordered to help the party of Dr Azikiwe (Zik), in the East, the NCNC. He explained: “They had to fix Zik of course, there was stuff they have got him for that could send him to prison … [they] forced him to do a deal with the North.”

Smith is adamant the orders to help the NCNC came from the top, the governor general Sir James Robertson. Smith described Robertson as “a thug and he had a terrible reputation….We loved Africans, but these people who came to do this job were a different breed, these were the ex-SOE [British Secret Service outfit set up during the Second World War] and MI6.”

According to Smith his colleagues reluctantly went along with the orders to aid the election campaign. Smith refused and asked to see Robertson.

He describes his meeting with Robertson. Robertson said, “I want you to know that everything you have alleged about the elections is correct…. You know too much and I want you to know how much trouble you are in. The Colonial Service is just like the army, you know what happens if you disobey orders on active service and that is what is going to happen to you.”

Smith added that Robertson was so angry he half expected him to produce a pistol and shoot him.

Smith showed Mike Thomson the copies of correspondence he has sent to the “great and the good” over the years in his campaign to highlight his allegations. Thomson remarked that without recordings of the conversations Harold Smith claims took place and no copies of the orders it is difficult for him to prove his case.

However, Thomson was able to quote from some documents that give a hint of what happened. One document is a letter written by Sir Peter Smethers who was a private parliamentary secretary at the British Colonial Office throughout most of the decolonization period and had been present at most of the independence negotiations, including that of Nigeria.

Writing of the Northern political class he says, “The attraction of the Kanu rulers was that they had a long and successful experience of government … offered the obvious choice to head the new experiment. It was difficult to see an alternative to the early stages of independence.”

Smethers died last year at the age of 92.

The other document was from the memoirs of Robertson, who died in 1983. He explained that in the elections that took place in 1959 to choose the government that would rule after independence, before the result was known there were rumours that the NCNC in the East and the so-called Action Group in the West were considering a coalition and would be able to form a majority in the House of Representatives.

He explained how he thought this might result in the North leaving the federation. Part of his role was to appoint as prime minister whoever he thought best able to command a majority in the House of Representatives. He invited Abukakr Tafawa Balewa, the Northern leader, to form a government even before the result of the election was known. He did so without consulting the secretary of state in the British government.

Thomson also explains how the British carried out a census in Nigeria in the years leading to independence and were accused of overestimating the numbers in the North to give them a higher representation in the parliament. Professor Anderson agrees it was certainly in the interests of Britain to have done that.

Both Professor Anderson and Mike Thomson applied under the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to the two files but have been refused.

Anderson told the programme:

“Clearly someone in the British government, when those files were classified, did not want us historians to learn something about what they contain and that raises my suspicions that those files might contain information about whatever deals were brokered between the British government and the NCNC. Because it is certainly the case that the NCNC would not have won the election it did without British support. Nor could it have formed a coalition with the NPC at independence without British support. So I would love to see what’s in those two files about Sir James Robertson and Dr Azikiwe.”

Dispatches on US Renditions

Tim Holmes — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:14:51 +0000

On June 11, British Channel 4 television’s current affairs Dispatches programme featured “Kidnapped to Order.” The programme presenter and investigator was Stephen Grey, author and journalist.

“Kidnapped” was an expose of the American government’s rendition programme, whereby suspected terrorists are flown around the world for detention and “interrogation” in different countries. It is a method of outsourcing torture.

The programme opened with the case of the Egyptian cleric Abu Omar. He had been living in Milan, Italy, after fleeing Egypt in the early 1990s, accused of belonging to a radical Islamist group. He was kidnapped off the street in Milan in February 2003 by CIA operatives. The operatives are currently on trial, in absentia, in Italy for the kidnapping.

Omar was taken to an Italian airbase at Aviano near Venice and flown to Ramstein in Germany, then bundled on another plane and flown to Cairo. He was released by the Egyptian authorities earlier this year after having been warned by his interrogators not to speak of his ordeal. However, the Dispatches team met up with Omar, who said he was prepared to talk to Stephen Grey.

Omar described how he had been subjected to violence after immediately being captured and pushed into a van. Covered in blood, he began to choke and was foaming at the mouth. On the plane, he was shackled and wrapped in masking tape. He realised he was back in Egypt as he was removed from the plane and heard accents.

In Cairo, he was taken to the notorious secret police headquarters. Omar stated that his Egyptian captors told him he had been taken there on behalf of the Americans. He went on to describe how he would be beaten whilst on the ground with fists, sticks and truncheons. He recounted one occasion when he was stripped naked, his hands tied behind his back, his legs tied together and put on the floor on his stomach. He was then told he was going to be raped. At this stage he lost consciousness.

Omar’s interrogation lasted 14 months, during which he met others in the secret police headquarters who had been rendered by US operatives.

The Bush administration’s line is that they seek assurances that prisoners will not be abused when sent to other countries. Dispatches explained that the CIA knew these assurances were worthless.

The programme interviewed Tyler Drumheller, head of the CIA European division from 2001 to 2005, covering the period when Omar was kidnapped. He candidly admitted that the CIA was aware of how the prisoners would be treated. “You can say that we asked them not to do it [abuse prisoners], which I think they did, but you have to be honest with yourself and say there is no way you can guarantee they are not going to do that…. Once you turn them over you have no control over them.”

The British government has been complicit in these operations. The programme explained that the jet used to kidnap Omar had twice flown over British airspace, once on the way to pick him up in Italy and once on the way back.

The line of the British government, along with other European governments, has been to deny knowledge of and connivance in rendition flights. It argues that the CIA used civilian planes and that flights classed as civilian would mean that under international law the US had no obligation to declare how the planes were being used.

However, the Dispatches programme had been able to obtain flight plans for many of the flights, and in many cases they were classed as state flights. Under international law, for a state flight to enter British airspace would mean the UK government should grant permission and be warned of any possible controversial nature to the mission.

These flights criss-cross the world with destinations that include Jordan, Uzbekistan and Guantanamo Bay, and have called at countries such as Sweden, Indonesia, Thailand, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yemen. By far, the main collection point is Pakistan. Dispatches stated that more than 900 people have been detained in Pakistan in the “war on terror.” The US pays the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s secret service, a bounty for all those handed over for rendition. So many have been “disappeared” that their families now organise rallies demanding to know their whereabouts.

Abdul Rachman, a shopkeeper, was interviewed in Peshawar near the Afghan border. He explained that he was arrested by the ISI, who told him they had done so on behalf of the Americans. He said he was stripped naked and beaten by his Pakistani guards. After a month, he was questioned by Americans. Rachman consistently told them he had no connection with terrorism. After some time, the Americans decided he was of no use to them, but he was not released. Instead he ended up in the Cairo headquarters of the Egyptian secret police.

Some in the American government/military elite are beginning to have concerns about the effectiveness of some of the methods being used, and that they may become counterproductive. The programme interviewed Lawrence Wilkerson, who served in the US military for more than 30 years and had been Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department. He is now retired and is a critic of the Bush government’s handling of the Iraq war.

He stated that the US was using an unsophisticated tool to detain people and there was no sophisticated method to vet them. He explained, “At the last count we had detained 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 people…. I maintain that 85 percent of those people were totally innocent…[having] no connection with terrorism.”

The programme highlighted the evidence produced by an 18-month investigation of the Council of Europe (COE) on secret prisons and rendition flights in European airspace, including CIA-run prisons in Poland and Romania. A CoE investigator told the programme how he had been able to speak to contacts in the Romanian government who had worked directly with the CIA in setting up the prisons and secret flights.

According to the programme, the exposure of the European secret prisons led the US government to rethink its methods. It interviewed Jeffrey Addicott, professor at the Centre for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University, Texas, and an enthusiastic proponent of the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” He said, “The CIA are now out of it…. [N]ow we’ll let other people detain these people and it will be their problem and they’ll have to comply with the rule of law.”

One part of the new network is Africa, which is becoming increasingly important to the strategic needs of America. The programme showed footage of the Al Qaeda bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The suspected coordinator of the attacks, Fazul Abdullah, has eluded capture.

The city of Mombassa in Kenya is home to half a million Muslims. Last year, the US helped to train and fund anti-terror police units.

Following the US-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia, thousands of refugees fled towards the Kenyan border. The US launched bombing raids on those fleeing in an attempt to kill suspected terrorists.

Some of those who made it to the border were picked up by Kenyan police. They included Reza, a British subject, who was informed that he was being detained on behalf of the US. The British authorities were informed, and Reza’s London flat was raided. He was then interrogated by MI5 agents in Nairobi, who finally concluded he had no links with terrorism. However, he was not released and one night was awakened, taken to the airport and put on a plane, shackled and blindfolded, to Somalia. He explained there were others on the flight who had been picked up by the Kenyan police, including women and children.

Grey interviewed Alimeen Kamazi, a Muslim human rights activist in Kenya. He had gone to court to get information about the rendition flights out of Kenya. He had been able to obtain copies of three flight manifests, which showed a total of 85 people who had been illegally rendered to Somalia, a war zone. The list included women and 11 children. The wife of Fazul Abdullah and his three children were amongst them. It would appear that a new method is being used in which suspect’s families are held in an attempt to smoke out the suspect.

The flights in January of this year were carried out by African Express Airways. The company confirms the flights took place, saying they would have lost their licence if they had refused. However, they would not say who had paid for the flights.

A demonstration took place in Mombassa in March this year against the policy of rendering children. The programme was able to track down one woman who had been rendered to Somalia on the flights. She subsequently had been released and returned home to her family in Tanzania, just over the Kenyan border.

The woman, 25-year-old Fatma Chandi, said she had been in Somalia with her husband but fled after the Ethiopian invasion. She had been in a group that included the wife of Fazal Abdullah. After arrest in Kenya, she was rendered with her children to Somalia. After being held in Mogadishu for 10 days, she was then rendered on to Ethiopia. Here, she was interrogated by Americans who took saliva swabs and fingerprints.

She shared a cell with other women who told her that they were questioned about their husbands. One of the women was pregnant, and after two weeks went into labour. She was transferred to hospital to have the baby, but then was returned to prison. Fatma was released without charge after three months and flew back to Tanzania. According to the programme, her husband and 70 other prisoners remain in prison.

Dispatches stated that the agency operating in the Horn of Africa is the FBI and that the CIA was staying in the background. This was confirmed by some of those who had been held, who reported being questioned by the FBI.

Grey interviewed Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who justified the imprisonment of the women. He said that when there are “international terrorists with their wives and children, you find the wife but don’t find the husband and the wife is fleeing the battle field, you don’t know whether the wife is just a wife, or a comrade, a colleague in the act of terrorism, you catch her you detain her.” He also admitted the Americans and other countries’ intelligence services had access to the prisoners.

Grey explained that he had not been able to see the prisoners, but was shown a TV interview with several of them that had been arranged by the Ethiopian state. They all claimed they were being well treated. Grey learnt afterwards that the prisoners had been told they would be freed after giving the interviews, but this proved to be just a trick.

Two of the prisoners on the TV film were later released without charge. One called Adnan, a Tunisian, gave a video testimony to Dispatches in which he explained how they were beaten.

The film graphically demonstrated the jettisoning of international law and democratic rights, not only by the Bush administration but by Britain and Europe. Far from the US retreating on its policy of rendition, it has opened up a new front for its activities in Africa and greatly expanded its terms of reference to include the kidnapping of woman and children.

Bird Flu and the Food Industry

Alex Doherty — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:10:24 +0000

On January 30, some dead turkeys were found in one of the intensive rearing sheds that form part of the Bernard Matthews turkey farm and processing plant in Holton, Suffolk in eastern England. The following day more turkeys were found dead and by February 3 more than a thousand had died.

Local vets were called in and, at first, E coli was suspected. Only after 48 hours had elapsed since the first bird deaths was the government Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) called in. Their vets established that the birds had died of the highly virulent bird flu strain H5N1. This virus has killed many birds throughout the world since its initial outbreak four years ago. To date, world wide, over 160 people have died of the H5N1 bird flu strain, most as a result of close proximity to diseased birds.

As yet the virus has not mutated to a form where it can be transmitted from human to human. This is an ever present danger. Because of the novel genetic make-up of the virus, and subsequent lack of previous human exposure, the virus has the potential to cause a human flu pandemic on the scale of the 1918 outbreak of “Spanish Flu” in which millions died.

Once it had been established that the turkeys had died of H5N1 type bird flu, the whole of the 160,000 flock of turkeys on the farm were slaughtered. After the cull had taken place, DEFRA scientists investigated the cause of the outbreak of the disease. First inclinations were to suspect transmission from a wild bird that had somehow entered the rearing sheds. Last year a swan found dead in Scotland was diagnosed as having died of the H5N1 virus. It was thought to have flown in from the continent where there have been several outbreaks of the disease.

However, DEFRA scientists analysing the viral DNA from the dead turkeys found it was genetically identical to viral DNA found in domestic geese that had been infected in January this year in Hungary.

It appears a possible link to the Hungary outbreak came as a result of a chance find of a label in a rubbish bin at the Suffolk site. Part of a leaked memo dated February 9 from COBRA, the British government’s civil contingencies committee which tackles national crises, published in the February 13 Daily Mail, “DEFRA epidemiologists have found a label in a waste bin on the Suffolk site with a reference that indicates it is from a third party abattoir, Gallfoods in Hungary, just outside the restricted zone [i.e, the zone in which bird flu has been found] . . . One possible unconfirmed route is that the abattoir processed birds from within the restricted area.”

The Bernard Mathews company has a subsidiary poultry business, the Saga plant, in Hungary. It would seem the Bernard Matthew company had initially failed to mention a possible link between its Suffolk farm and its Hungarian subsidiary. A Guardian article of February 10 stated, “For days, the company has maintained that operations in Hungary and Suffolk are entirely separate with no trade between them but yesterday [Feb 9] . . admitted there was significant trade between the plants . . that it could have imported infected turkey meat.”

Whilst DEFRA had become aware of such a connection between the outbreak in Hungary and that in Suffolk it did not want the information to be publicised. The Guardian had published the information on its web site on February 8. The newspaper had been told by a source within DEFRA that a shipment of nearly 40 tonnes of poultry meat from Hungary had arrived at Horton just prior to the turkeys contracting the bird flu.

The source contacted the paper with concerns that DEFRA were not making the information public. The article states, “[B]oth state vets and officials were deeply aware that such information would take the trail away from the hypothesis of a wild bird flying in and spreading the disease, and into the realm of the poultry food trade. The document which discussed the consignment of food and how it was handled was marked ‘commercial in confidence’ The protection of Britain’s £3.4bn poultry industry appeared to be taking greater priority than the risk to human health.”

The Guardian had contacted the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the official body that overseas food safety, to ask what actions they were taking to avoid the possibility of infected food going into the human food chain, only to be told by the FSA that they were unaware of the matter.

The incoming Labour government of 1997 set up DEFRA and the FSA in the wake of the outbreak of “Mad Cow Disease,” or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), which to date has claimed nearly 160 human lives. The previous Tory government, after initially denying a link between Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in cows and its human equivalent vCJD, finally accepted that such a link existed

DEFRA and especially the FSA were trumpeted by the incoming Labour government as being free of the commercial pressures that had led to the cover-up of the BSE crisis. The incident at the Bernard Matthew turkey farm shows this is not the case.

An interim report published by DEFRA on February 14 pointed out the proximity of Bernard Mathews’s turkey rearing sheds and its meat processing plant. There were “large numbers of gulls . . clearly attracted to the site by the presence of the processing plant and . . . the access to waste trimmings . . in bins . . . Gulls were observed . . carrying trimmings away from the processing plant and into the area containing the finishing units (turkey sheds) . . Polythene bags which had apparently contained meat products . . [had] the potential to be blown across the site . . there were several points of entry for small birds and rodents . . [and] extensive water leakage . . that could allow physical transfer of infection . . In summary, there are a number of ways that infection could have entered the shed with the clinically affected birds.”

According to the Daily Mail, February 17, “It is understood the MHS (Meat Hygiene Service) warned Bernard Matthews on several occasions about leaving the processing plant waste bins open. Now the organisation is investigating prosecuting the company under the Animal By-Product Regulations 2003 for failing to do so.”

The Bernard Matthews Holton turkey rearing site and processing unit is no shoestring operation. There are 22 rearing sheds with 7,000 turkeys in each shed. Nearby, separated by a chain link fence, is an abattoir, processing sheds and cold store. According to the company, bio-security is given top priority. Bernard Matthews’s company generates a £400 million a year turnover. It is the largest turkey processing company in Europe.

It is still not clear how the bird flu virus entered the turkey breeding sheds at the Suffolk site. The DEFRA report of February 14 notes that “investigations will continue to be all embracing with respect to possible sources of infection and means of introduction of the virus into the premises. Further reports will be made when significant findings are revealed by our investigations.”

An International Herald Tribune article of February 12 commented, “Most of the scattered bird flu outbreaks this year probably can be traced to illegal or improper trade in poultry, scientists believe.” The article went on to quote Samuel Jutzi, director of Animal Production and Health at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, saying, “Many of us at the outset underestimated the role of trade. The virus is behaving rather differently than last year—it’s rather enigmatic.”

Speaking at a recent Royal Society of Medicine meeting in London, Professor Sir Roy Anderson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London, warned of Britain’s lack of preparation for an outbreak of H5N1 bird flu that has managed to cross to the human population.

He explained, “This is a virus that is always rapidly evolving . . It is extremely difficult to predict in which ways it will continue to evolve . . We currently live in an international jet-setting age, so the range of contacts of people from other countries is far greater than it was four generations ago. (A reference to the 1918 flu pandemic) . . . This makes it harder to control any outbreak . . . The virus will saturate very quickly in the UK, and there will be very little time to contain it.”

Assault on Asylum-Seekers

Alex Doherty — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:20:26 +0000

The British Labour government is ratcheting up the pressure on asylum-seekers and refugees in Britain. Deportations are being pursued regardless of the consequences for the deportees. This policy reflects an increasingly belligerent government attitude towards refugees.

Some cases recently highlighted include:

Two 18-year-old Jewish sisters, Kamila and Karina Kaya, who are currently being held at the Yarl’s Wood detention centre. They had fled Kyrgyzstan in 2003 after their parents had been killed (murder is suspected). The twins, who had settled in Birmingham, were doing well at college and hoping to become doctors. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC), they have been given a temporary reprieve subject to a juridical review. They are, however, still held at Yarl’s Wood and according to friends and supporters showing signs of extreme distress.

Two Algerian men recently sent back to Algeria. Amnesty International (AI), the human rights group, has raised concerns for their safety. They had been held in custody in Britain from 2001 to 2004 under the anti-terrorism act. They were never charged and were released after the Law Lords (Britain’s supreme court) ruled that detention without trial was illegal. After release, they were subject to close supervision. On arrival in Algeria, the men were arrested by the Algerian military police, the DRS. The British director of AI, Kate Allen, said, “We are deeply concerned about that these men are at risk of torture…. [T]hese men have been labelled ‘suspected international terrorists’ by the UK authorities, they were always at risk of torture and should have never been returned to Algeria.”

Alnour Yousif Fasher was due to be deported back to Darfur in Sudan on January 22. Fasher, from a prominent family, is a member of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) opposed to the Sudanese government. The government plans to send back other refugees from Darfur in the Sudan. Their applications for asylum have been rejected by the British Home Office. Dr. James Smith, executive director of the Aegis Trust (which campaigns against genocide), explained, “The sending back of Darfuris to Sudan is dangerous and misguided. Alnour is at particular risk…. By telling such people they can return to Khartoum, the city where the organisers of the atrocities are still operating, Britain is becoming part of the thread of brutality in Darfur.”

The case of a Sibtain Bokhari, a human rights lawyer originally from Pakistan who had settled in Grimsby, was taken up by local MP Austin Mitchell. Writing in the Independent newspaper February 1, Mitchell described how Bokhari and his family had been deported back to Lahore.

Bokhari, a Shia, had lived in a Sunni-dominated area in Lahore. After attending a rights conference in Britain in 2001, he became the subject of attacks and intimidation on his return to Lahore and was branded a stooge of Tony Blair. He fled to Britain in 2003 and applied for asylum. He settled in Grimsby with his wife and four children, who all went to school locally. The family’s application for asylum was turned down, and in June 2005, the family was arrested prior to deportation. Mitchell then intervened on the family’s behalf and was able to get the case reconsidered. The MP describes how his representations to the Home Office immigration ministers led nowhere. The family was eventually deported at the end of January this year.

Mitchell wrote, “It leaves a nasty taste. An out-of-control Immigration and Nationality Directorate is doing what it wants to get deportations up. The minister goes along, ratifies its decisions (he hardly ever rejects them), observes its deadlines and strings MPs along, pretending to listen while doing nothing…. I feel ashamed.”

Mitchell’s response is indicative of the extent to which the official political agenda has shifted to the right. The normal mechanisms by which certain democratic constraints were exercised on government have atrophied. His recognition that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is, in his own words, “out-of control” points to the alarming extent to which the Blair government is resorting to administrative measures that seriously erode democratic rights.

Many asylum-seekers never come to public attention. The full extent of the government’s campaign is obscured. Under recent legislation, asylum-seekers must now apply immediately on entry to the country. This reduces the likelihood of them receiving legal representation to put their case. As a result, 19 out of 20 applications are rejected. Of those who appeal, only 20 percent are successful.

Failed asylum-seekers face deportation at the rate of one every 27 minutes.

According to official government figures, 15,685 failed asylum-seekers were removed from the country in 2005, an increase of 5 percent over 2004. This is in spite of the fact that the number of applications received in 2005 was 24 percent fewer than in 2004.

“The asylum system is unjust from beginning to end,” Anna Reisenberger, acting chief executive at the Refugee Council in Britain, told the Independent. “Too many people are refused protection because of poor initial decision making, an inadequate appeals system and a chronic lack of legal representation. In a desperate attempt to increase the numbers of removals, the officials go after soft targets.”

The pressure is on to maintain the pace of deportations. Whole groups of people are now being rounded up and deported en masse. Large numbers of Iraqi and Kurdish asylum-seekers have been held in detention centres throughout the country. A Home Office spokeswoman told the Observer that the intention was to fly them forcibly to the Kurdish region of northern Iraq in February.

A Refugee Council spokeswoman condemned the deportations. Stating that even though the northern region of Iraq was less dangerous than Baghdad, she added that, nevertheless, “It is a dangerous place; there is no rule of law.”

The United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) said only voluntary returnees should be sent. In a statement, it noted Iraq is “still extremely unstable and dangerous, characterised by a general lack of law and order and the erratic provision of basic services.”

The National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns web site reports that a further charter flight was scheduled for February 12. They add, “At the moment immigration are rounding up as many failed Iraqi/Kurd asylum-seekers as possible…. Regardless of the fact, that at the moment Iraq is in free-fall to destruction.”

Refugees rounded up in this way are subjected to a traumatic experience. Detention is source of intense emotional stress. The National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns reported government figures showing that in November of last year, 160 detainees required medical attention for self-harming.

No group is off limits as the British government develops its hard line against immigrants and asylum-seekers. African refugees who are HIV-positive have been deported back to Africa to face death due to lack of antiretroviral drugs in their home countries. A December 2006 report by the AIDS charity Cruaid dismisses claims of “health tourism” in respect to people seeking treatment for HIV in Britain. Its report notes there is no evidence of such a phenomenon. It cites evidence gathered by the George House Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust that show most asylum-seekers and refugees arriving in Britain are unaware of their HIV status until they have been in the country for several months. Lisa Power of the Terrence Higgins Trust accused the government of sending people back to their deaths.

The British government is now planning to deport child asylum-seekers. Home Secretary John Reid was forced to admit that government policy “did not strike the right balance” after the High Court ruled that it was detaining scores of children and young people unlawfully. Children as young as 14 years of age have been imprisoned in detention centres, alongside adults. The High Court heard that some of the children have suffered serious psychological damage because of their inappropriate treatment.

Mark Scott, a lawyer for one of the children, said, “Some of them have been detained for long periods of time—the longest we know of being 87 days.”

At least 100 similar cases are expected to be brought before the courts in the next months as the Immigration and Nationality Directorate begin to send children back to Vietnam. A second wave of expulsions is planned for child refugees from Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Around 3,000 unaccompanied children arrive in Britain each year from war-torn regions of the world to seek asylum.

Under the Geneva Convention on Human Rights, governments are obliged to admit unaccompanied children seeking asylum. Increasingly the UK government has overridden international law. It has become routine for young people to be detained and deported once they reach the age of 18, as in the case of the Kaya twins. They face return to a country of which they know little, may not even speak the language and have no surviving family or friends to help them.

Now, even those under 18 are at risk. It has been the practice for local authorities to find foster families for such children in the past. But the government now plans a fundamental shake-up of the system, which will cut off the funding for this highly vulnerable group of children. Like many adult asylum-seekers, they will increasingly find themselves dependent on charitable handouts as official funding is snatched away. Charities working with asylum-seekers report increasing numbers of refugees living on the street in complete destitution.

The UK government is pursuing its campaign against immigrants and asylum-seekers regardless of the human consequences. It is deaf to political representations, even from its own MPs, and contemptuous of warnings from charities and human rights organisations. Insofar as it has to respond to court rulings, it does so reluctantly and only until it can find a way of circumventing the law or changing it.

The Labour government is hell-bent on a policy that will lead to the deaths of some of the most vulnerable people in society. It is a policy that is the domestic counterpart of its war drive abroad. Many of the people being deported are the victims of wars, civil strife and instability that the UK has played its part in fomenting. Coming to Britain in search of refuge, they find themselves being made scapegoats for the inadequacy of the education system, the health service and welfare provision in Britain.

The government needs such scapegoats precisely because it is impossible to pursue an aggressive foreign policy and at the same time preserve the social conditions of the mass of the British population.

G8's Empty Promises

Tim Holmes — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:39:33 +0000

Last years Group of Eight (G8) summit of leading industrial nations was hailed as a milestone in tackling global poverty. Hundreds of thousands of people had been mobilized to join demonstrations coinciding with the meeting in Scotland by the Make Poverty History campaign, comprising Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and church groups. The campaigns front men, rock stars Bob Geldof and Bono, claimed the summit would provide an opportunity to force world leaders to address the desperate poverty endured by billions of the worlds population.

At the summits closure Geldof said this aim had been met. He declared that the G8 had scored 10 out of 10 on aid relief and 8 out of 10 on debt relief. British Prime Minister Tony Blair boasted that great progress has been made.

One year on and the G8s pledges on debt and aid have been subject to an analysis by three British development charitiesAction Aid, Oxfam International and the World Development Movement.

Beyond the hyperbole, the G8 agreement announced just $40 billion in debt forgiveness over 10 years out of a total external debt of $230 billion in sub-Saharan Africa alone, and $2.4 trillion in the so-called developing countries.

Even then, the reports find that much of the promised cancellation of debt to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund is outstanding. The World Bank has said it will only cancel debt incurred up to December 2003 rather than December 2004a $5 billion shortfall on the amount pledged.

According to the World Development Movement report, To date, of the $37 billion needed to pay for the initiative, only 60 percent has been pledged by rich countries including the G8, leaving them $14.8 billion short. Worse still, of this 60 percent, only 10 percent is a firm commitment. The remainder is qualified, meaning it has first to be agreed by various national parliaments, budgetary processes and cabinets, with no guarantee it will happen. In other words, nine months after the deal was announced by the G8, so far they have committed only 10 percent of the money needed to finance it.

Another report by the Jubilee Debt Campaign explains, The benefit of the total $50 billion cancellation will be felt over about 40 yearsthat is the time over which the debts would otherwise have been paidso on average the benefit is about $1.25 billion a year … [which] is equal only to the amount that the worlds poorest countries altogether pay in debt service every 12 days.

The G8 countries pledged to increase aid spending by $50 billion by 2010 and reiterated promises to raise aid spending to 0.7 percent of each member states GDP. This pledge was originally made back in the 1970s, but on average the level reached is about half the target level.

Oxfam notes, On the face of it, OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) figures show that 2005 aid from the G8 has increased massively, by $21 billion or 37 percent over its 2004 levels. However, this increase does not withstand closer scrutiny, since the overwhelming majority of the increase (80 percent) is made up of one-off debt cancellation deals for Iraq and Nigeriait is not actually new money in the fight against poverty … these two deals add up to $17 billion of the $21 billion … the underlying trend in aid … gives cause for serious concern.

The practice of double counting debt cancellation as aid still continues:

Rich countries also count the full cost of the cancellation (of debt) over a very short period. But the savings made by poor countries are spread over a much longer timeframe. This means aid figures are inflated by apparently huge amounts, even when the actual money available to spend fighting poverty is far less.

The G8 also pledged to make treatment for HIV sufferers universal by 2010. Currently over 5 million people worldwide who urgently need treatment do not have access, with some NGOs estimating this figure will double by 2010. Action Aid states, Donors are failing to back the pledge with sufficient money, leaving an annual funding gap of at least $10 billion a year.

Starvation and malnutrition are endemic in many areas, especially in southern Africa. A recent World Food Programme (WFP) news briefing describes the situation in southern Africa, with high levels of HIV/AIDS, food insecurity and chronic poverty … dependence on rain fed agriculture … nonavailability or poor access to seeds and fertilisers … high incidence of pests and disease for livestock and crops.

The Make Poverty History campaign pushed fair trade as a solution to this problem.

The G8 summit made pledges to cut domestic farm subsidies, open markets to goods from poor countries and work towards cutting subsidies to agricultural exports from developed countries. But last month the Doha round of world trade liberalisation talks between the United States, European Union, Japan, India, Brazil and Australia collapsed without agreementwith measures to reduce agricultural subsidies in the West one of the main points of contention.

In fact, the main thrust of the World Trade Organisations policy towards the so-called Third World is to open up markets as a source of cheap resources and labour. Loans made are subject to structural adjustment programmes whereby existing utilities and services are privatised to the benefit of Western capital.

The World Development Movement explains that a recent World Bank economic model estimates that developing countries will gain $16 billion per year from the likely outcome of the Doha Round. At the same time, UN research based on the same liberalisation scenario estimates a loss of developing country tax revenues of some $64.3 billion. Even being optimistic about the ability of developing countries to create new forms of tax income to replace in part tariffs, the loss is likely to be in the region of $25 billion … increasing the reliance of developing countries on unpredictable and conditional aid rather than having their own sources of government revenue.

Given this record, it is little wonder that world debt and aid to the poorest countries did not even figure on the agenda of this years G8 summit in Russia.

Britain Unprepared

Alex Doherty — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:26:34 +0000

On April 6 the Scottish Executive announced that a dead swan found in the harbour of the small seaside village of Cellardyke in Scotland was infected with the highly contagious bird flu virus H5N1.

The bird had been found on March 29, but from the state of the body it had probably been dead several weeks. The corpse was sent to the European Union (EU) laboratory in Weybridge, Surrey. It had been found by a local inhabitant, Tina Briscoe, who reported it to the authorities. She expressed concern that the body of the swan was not retrieved until the day after she reported it.

Once it was confirmed as an H5N1 infection, a 3 kilometre protection zone was set up around the site. Within this zone all poultry had to be brought indoors and all flocks were tested for the infection. A wider 10 kilometre surveillance zone was set up around the point of infection, in which the transport of poultry is restricted and meetings such as animal fairs are banned.

Concern was expressed that it took over a week for the Weybridge laboratory to confirm the disease. The laboratory was closed at weekends and this contributed to the delay in getting the result.

Farmers within the wider surveillance zone said that days after the virus infection had been confirmed, they had still not been informed by the government what steps to take to protect their health and that of their families.

Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association (an organic producers lobby group), called for more remedial action. The situation is frighteningly reminiscent of the foot and mouth (a highly infectious disease affecting cattle, sheep and pigs) crisis of 2001, when they left it too late and had to burn thousands of animals on giant pyres, he said. Ring vaccination of poultry on farms around an outbreak is crucial to prevent the virus spreading. Its worked in France and other countries.

He had written to the Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture asking them for details of their ring vaccination plans, but DEFRA had not replied.

Farmers in other parts of the country have criticised the governments advice as confusing. The Sunday Telegraph of April 9 quoted Tim Wood, a Somerset-based farmer supplying free range eggs: Weve been told to cover our pens with netting but my chickens run free over 75 acres. It is completely unfeasible for me to cover this whole area with wire netting. The situation is totally chaotic.

Steve Ledsham, a Cheshire-based organic farmer, explained: DEFRA has provided us with excessive amounts of information and documents, written in ridiculous technical jargon, so that we are left confused about what their advice really is.

Because the dead swan when found was headless and in an advanced state of decomposition, it was not immediately possible to identify what breed it was. Identifying the particular species of an infected bird could be important in giving clues as to how it had become infected. A native species would indicate it had picked up the infection from another bird, whereas a migratory bird might have been infected in the country from which it flew.

It took 12 days to identify the swan found at Cellardyke as a Whooper Swan. Identification was based on its DNA pattern. The British-based Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) emphasised the importance of correct identification. They stated: Making sure the bird is properly identified is a crucial part of assembling the jigsaw that is bird flu. Poor attempts in other parts of the world have severely hampered investigations. There is the expectation that the UK Government would be able to identify for certain any bird found with bird flu in this country. I cant emphasise enough how important it is that they get it right.

Whooper Swans are migratory and the bird is likely to have been infected prior to arriving in Britain. A BBC news report stated: Whitehall (government) sources told the BBC a working hypothesis is the bird could have died in another country and been washed up on the Scottish coast.

Andre Farrar, RSPB spokesman, stated: The likeliest scenarioand this has to be in the realms of speculationis that the bird may have set off on its journey northwards, got part of the way across the North Sea, felt grotty, and landed on or fell into the sea, died and was washed into Cellardyke.

The fact that the H5N1 virus type identified was almost identical to that of the virus found in Ruegen in Germany last month would also fit this scenario. Professor Hugh Pennington, a microbiologist based at Aberdeen University, explained: This raises the likelihood that it had no contact with any native birds and that this case of H5N1 on our shores was a one-off.

Since the H5N1 infection was confirmed in the swan found in Cellardyke, tests on dead wild birds found throughout the country, but especially in the immediate area, have been stepped up. According to DEFRA, all these tests have proved negative. However, the April 12 edition of the magazine New Scientist featured its investigation into these tests and suggested that they may be flawed. It explained:

Suspicions have been raised because DEFRAs tests revealed none of the ordinary flu that ducks and geese normally carry. Of the 3343 faecal samples from wild birds taken for DEFRA by the conservation group the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) in December, only two were shown to contain low-pathogenicity bird flu -0.06 percent.

The New Scientist spoke to Bjorn Olsen of the University of Kalmar in Sweden, who said, Theres something wrong with those numbers.

He is responsible for conducting bird flu tests in Europe and carries out around 10,000 such tests each year. He explained that in tests he had performed in December 1 percent of dabbling ducks and 10 percent of geese would be carrying low-pathogenicity bird flu.

Dr. Olsen told the Guardian newspaper how in Britain, when carrying out the test, the faecal swabs were put in a dry plastic tube which was then put in a fridge. If you left a swab in the refrigerator like that, it would dry out and youd lose all your virus, he said.

The swab should be immersed in saline and then frozen, he explained. His comments were backed up by Professor Pennington, who stated, There are genuine issues here about whether DEFRA is using the right system or not.

To date it would seem that the swan found in Cellardyke was an isolated case, but it is highly probable that the virus will arrive in Britain at some point. The response and questions raised over the Cellardyke case would indicate that in spite of the governments boasts to the contrary, preparedness for bird flu is woefully inadequate.

Prepared For Bird Flu?

Alex Doherty — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:35:19 +0000

Recent outbreaks of the avian influenza A (H5N1) in Germany and France have increased concerns that it is only a matter of time before the disease appears in Britain.

Speaking to the BBC, Prime Minister Tony Blairs chief scientific adviser Professor Sir David King said, I would anticipate that avian flu will arrive at some point in the UK. We also have to anticipate that it will be here for five years plus. We are talking about the possibility of the disease being endemic here in the UK.

The current lethal strain of avian flu, which first emerged in Hong Kong in 1997, has now spread throughout Asia and Africa; in the last months, cases have been confirmed in wild birds in a number of European countries, including Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia. In France, the first infection of domestic farm birds occurred at Versailleux. The farm in question was 200 metres from a lake where wild ducks died of the disease.

Avian flu can be transmitted to humans who are in close contact with birds or who consume inadequately cooked meat from infected fowls. As of yet, no cases of the disease spreading to humans have been reported in Europe. Confirmation that a cat in Germany has died from the disease, however, has raised fears that the virus could potentially mutate into a human virus.

Samuel Jutzi, director of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, has said, We need to be aware that theres a real risk for Europe when the birds migrate northwards this spring.

A more detailed understanding of bird migration would be necessary in the fight against avian flu. The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programmes, Klaus Toepfer, has observed, There are important gaps in our scientific knowledge about fly-ways and migratory routes for some species. We need to urgently bridge that gap.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals has set up a task force to investigate how the virus is transmitted between wild and domestic birds and which migration routes pose the greatest danger of spreading the disease.

The British government, however, has so far refused to insist that free-range birds be confined indoors, as is now the case in the Netherlands and Germany, for example, or to begin a vaccination programme. Blair has said that he is satisfied, in so far as it is possible, that we have got all the necessary precautions in place, to deal with an outbreak.

Under current plans, should the disease be confirmed in Britain, all birds suspected of exposure will be destroyed along with eggs and the area subject to a 3-kilometre protection zone for 21 days. Beyond this, a 10-kilometre surveillance zone would be created in which all birds would be kept indoors, markets and fairs banned, and the movement of poultry and eggs restricted.

However, Britains record in controlling epizootics is abysmal. It failed to contain the foot and mouth outbreak amongst livestock in 2001, when it also dragged its feet and refused to use vaccination.

Moreover, the complacency of successive British governments over animal health has already led to the emergence of a new human disease in the form of New Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The fatal brain-wasting disorder is thought to have resulted from cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy passing into the human food chain.

Foot and mouth rarely infects humans and is not serious when it does. But the same failed strategy of isolation and mass culling is to be employed in dealing with avian flu.

The great danger of the British governments inaction is that it increases the opportunity for the H5N1 strain to take hold and mutate.

Britain is second only to France in Europe in the production of poultry meatmore than 1.5 million tonnes in 2004. The industry, which employs 50,000 people, had exports worth £250 million in 2004. Just 200 farms account for 95 percent of production, and many farmers have argued that the cost and inconvenience of preventive measures are too great.

Some scientists and experts have highlighted the dangers of the governments approach, among them John Oxford, Professor of Virology at St. Bartholomews and the Royal London Hospital, who has said the government should follow the example of the Netherlands and start a vaccination programme.

The Dutch government has begun a programme to vaccinate poultry flocks against the current threat. In 2003, an outbreak of avian flu amongst poultry in the Netherlands involving an H7N7 type virusa less lethal strain than H5N1left one person dead and 300 people infected.

Professor Oxford said of the Dutch response; Science is pushing them…. [T]hey have done a lot of work…. [T]hey are very knowledgeable…. [T]here has been a lot of investment over the last two years.

He condemned the British governments passivity saying, No action is going to be taken until a proven isolation of the virus from within the country [occurs].... [A]s a virologist that does not ring a very solid notion in my head.

Refuting accusations that he was overreacting, Oxford compared the current situation to that of 1917 when the newly arrived infection, soon to be known as Spanish flu, initially led to the death of 100 soldiers. By the next year, the number dead from the infection worldwide was 50 million.

Asked if he thought that the virus could become less virulent, he said that it was possible but described the virus as very aggressive and a scarlet pimpernel. The death of the cat in Germany meant it was necessary to prepare for the danger of the flu strain becoming capable of human-to-human transmission, he warned.

Bird Flu in Britain

Alex Doherty — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:38:03 +0000

Recent outbreaks of the avian influenza A (H5N1) in Germany and France have increased concerns that it is only a matter of time before the disease appears in Britain.

Samuel Jutzi, director of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, has said, We need to be aware that theres a real risk for Europe when the birds migrate northwards this spring.

Foot and mouth rarely infects humans and is not serious when it does. But the same failed strategy of isolation and mass culling is to be employed in dealing with avian flu.

The great danger of the British governments inaction is that it increases the opportunity for the H5N1 strain to take hold and mutate.