Controlling(?) E. coli

Someone was telling me last night about her friend's revolutionary work on controlling pre-harvest E. coli in cattle by feeding hay for a few days. I had to break it to her that it's common knowledge, now, that that works. There are probably thousands of studies going on right now to figure out E. coli reduction in cattle.

With all this work, though, who do people trust? The activists.

Yes, the people (in some cases) who say raw milk is healthier than pasteurized, or veganism is healthier than carnivorism, or homeopathy works. I'll grant them homeopathy -- there is a documented placebo effect if people believe something will work. Still, less than half surveyed trust the government on food safety! That technically includes me right now: I work for a land-grant university, studying pre-harvest food safety. But government isn't looking out for us like the activists are . . . I'm just going to stop now . . .

Less than half Americans see meat safety regulations as adequate: survey

By Janie Gabbett on 12/6/2007 for Meatingplace.com

In the wake of this year's spike in ground beef recalls, fewer Americans are confident the government has adequate food safety regulations for meat and poultry, according to a new GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media survey.

The telephone survey, commissioned by The Worldcom Public Relations Group, showed only 46 percent of 1,009 adults polled were confident meat and poultry were adequately regulated, compared to 48 percent for seafood, 57 percent for dairy, 58 percent for fruits and vegetables and 65 percent for cereals and grains.

At an average of 50 percent, confidence in food regulation in general ranked below every other category polled, other than toys (37 percent).

Trusting activists

The survey also found that U.S. consumers have more faith in activists and retail grocers than either the government or food companies when it comes to providing information about food choices.

While 64 percent said advocates and activist groups have consumers' best interests in mind when providing information about food choices, 62 percent felt that way about grocers, 53 percent about food manufacturers, 47 percent about the U.S. government and 26 percent about fast food companies.

"These results support the idea that activists may have been successful in dominating discussions about food policy," said Bob Giblin, a senior public relations counselor and research director who tracks food and agricultural issues for Morgan&Myers.

Subsidies aren't bad?

Depends on who you are. If you're Malawi, it turned out to be the answer, the way out of the poverty trap.

The lesson here is not to ignore the experts, as the article's title says, but to work to your situation, not someone else's expectations and desires. Those experts Malawi was ignoring? The ones that said subsidies and big government would sink a poor country? They wanted Malawi to spend less of their (loaned) money. Most people could tell you, though, that sometimes a little more money spent is worth it in the long run.

Sometimes we're right

Apparently, epidemiologists have been saying for a while that the UN's estimation of AIDS cases in low-income countries is flawed. Turns out, they were right.

I hadn't heard anything about the criticisms before this article, but I don't blame them for criticizing: estimates were based on anonymous women coming to free clinics for pregnancy or STD tests. Free clinics are primarily in the cities, and women needing pregnancy or STD tests are, by definition, sexually active. Rural, sexually inactive women would be ignored by this method. And they overestimated?

Lesson: think about biases before you extrapolate results to a general population.

Can you pay extra for a sterilized cooking staff?

My first thought seeing this article: what will this mean for the CDC's 'cruise ship of the week'? After all, those things are great infection vats! Mostly because all the people are shoved together, though . . . maybe this will help.

Slow food revival? Nah.

A friend was just asking me if slow food was as popular out East as it was back (for him) West. This seems to say that no, slow food isn't overly popular in the US in general.

I'm very worried by the statistic that 25% of family dinners are at restaurants. 1) You don't teach your kids to cook by going to a restaurant. 2) That probably includes (and is overwhelmed by) fast-food restaurants. Eek.

Americans like hamburgers, locally grown and convenience foods: poll

By Janie Gabbett on 11/8/2007 for Meatingplace.com

According to PARADE magazine's biennial "What America Eats" survey, 21 percent of Americans would choose a hamburger as their only food on a deserted island.

Respondents to the survey of 2001 Americans over 18 years of age were given a choice of seven foods. Pizza was the top choice at 37 percent, followed by hamburger (21 percent), fruit (17 percent), veggies (12 percent), chocolate (8 percent), apple pie (3 percent) and French fries (2 percent).

The survey also found that 82 percent of Americans use convenience foods (pre-made fresh, frozen, refrigerated, canned or packaged) and 22 percent are using more of such foods than a year ago. While 46 percent believe these foods are more expensive, 71 percent said the cost is worth it for the time saved.

Local, natural and green

The movement towards eating foods grown locally is "one of the hottest culinary trends to come along in years," according to the survey, which cited recent E. coli scares and tainted food from China as factors driving Americans to think about where their food comes from and how it is grown.

When shopping for groceries, 38 percent of respondents said that all-natural claims are important, while 34 percent said recyclable packaging is a big factor and 32 percent said "environmentally friendly" labels are an important purchasing consideration. And 70 percent said they are at least somewhat likely to buy products that won't harm the environment, even if they cost more.

Where we eat

• 87 percent said they eat home-cooked food for dinner, 5 percent chose restaurant take-out and only 1 percent eat supermarket-prepared meals
• 81 percent said they eat breakfast at home, but 59 percent admit they skip it and 4 percent eat it in a restaurant
• 60 percent eat lunch at home, with 36 percent skipping it and 10 percent in a restaurant
• 25 percent of family dinners are at a restaurant and only 5 percent don't eat dinner

More men in the kitchen

Men are doing more grocery shopping and cooking more meals than 20 years ago. The survey said 71 percent of women now do the grocery shopping versus 93 percent 20 years ago, and 68 percent of women said they prep and cook food for their household versus 94 percent two decades ago.

Fantasy meals

If a TV family could join them for dinner, 29 percent of respondents picked the cast of "Friends", while 24 percent preferred "The Brady Bunch" and 15 percent want to eat with "The Simpsons." Only 7 percent want to eat with The Costanzas from "Seinfeld".

Rachael Ray was the pick (38 percent) for the chef Americans want to cook their dinner, followed by (30 percent) Emeril Lagasse.

And if calories and nutrition were no object, 26 percent of Americans would most often eat pizza, 20 percent Chinese food, 14 percent fried chicken, 10 percent fast-food hamburgers and 9 percent deli sandwiches or wraps. A hot dog with the works was the choice of 3 percent of those polled.

The survey was sponsored in part by Sara Lee Food and Beverage and conducted by Mark Clements Research Inc.

Translation: foreigners are dirty!

Okay, this doesn't really surprise me. What does surprise me is that this hasn't come up before. The real lesson: cook your meat fully (and don't drink raw milk -- the population of poultry workers and that of milkers isn't all that different).

More than 200 test positive for TB at poultry plant

By Alicia Karapetian on 11/5/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Some 28 percent of the 765 employees screened for tuberculosis at one of Wayne Farms LLC's poultry processing facilities in Decatur, Ala., tested positive, the Decatur Daily reported.

Final testing was completed at the Alabama State Department of Public Health's Tubrerculosis Control Division Wednesday, with a total of 212 positive skin tests.

The testing was done in two batches. On Oct. 11, 167 employees were tested, resulting in 47 positive skin tests, one of which was an active, and contagious, case.

More recently, the final group of tests was completed last week, which resulted in 167 positive skin tests from a pool of 598 samples. Those most recently tested and with positive skin tests will receive chest X-rays on Thursday to determine if any of those cases are active and contagious, according to the Decatur Daily.

Scott Jones, interim director at the state's TB division told the Decatur Daily that he is not surprised by the number of positive skin tests given that many of the workers at the facility were born outside of the United States.

Really?!?! Not a lobbyist?

This is surprising! No, I'm not bashing Republicans -- most secretaries of agriculture have industry ties. Schafer, though, seems to be clean (of the ag industry; he has worked in other industries). Nice change . . . although the new Farm Bill looks like more of the same . . . one step at a time!

Bush nominates new ag secretary

By Tom Johnston on 11/1/2007 for Meatingplace.com

President Bush has nominated Edward T. Schafer to serve as the nation's next Agriculture Secretary, saying Schafer's service over two terms as governor of North Dakota has well qualified him for the job, the White House announced.

Schafer, a Republican who elected not to make another run for North Dakota governor office in 2000, will succeed Mike Johanns, who resigned to campaign for Nebraska's Senate seat. (See Johanns announces U.S. Senate bid on Meatingplace.com, Oct. 11, 2007.)

Chuck Conner, who has been serving as acting agriculture secretary, applauded the president's pick.

"Having served two terms as governor of an agricultural state, he (Schafer) knows the issues," Conner said. "He has led trade missions, promoted renewable energy and advanced rural development in his home state. His reputation for being a strong leader with a straightforward approach and optimistic outlook will fit perfectly here at the department, and it will be appreciated by the farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders whom we serve."

Jay Truitt, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, also spoke highly of Schafer.

"He will bring a fresh perspective to USDA at a time when American agriculture is facing many new challenges in policy development and opportunities in innovation and technology," Truitt said. "This is a critical time for U.S. agriculture, and we're looking forward to working with Mr. Schafer to help guide the cattle and beef industry into the future."

The title says it all

Yep, no surprises here:

New cancer report says limit red and processed meat; industry disagrees

By Janie Gabbett on 10/31/2007 for Meatingplace.com

A new report by the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research suggests limiting intake of red meat and avoiding processed meat as one of ten recommendations to reduce cancer risk.

The report, which updates the group's 1997 findings and reviewed over 7,000 studies, said it found that both red meat (defined as beef, pork, lamb and goat) and processed meat (defined as meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting or chemical preservatives) increased risk of colorectal cancer if eaten in large quantities.

It cautioned people who eat red meat to consume less than 500 grams (18 ounces) of cooked red meat a week and that they consume "very little, if any" processed meat, such as bacon, ham, sausage and lunchmeat.

"The panel emphasizes that this overall recommendation is not for diets containing no red meat or diets containing no foods of animal origin," the report said, noting that meat can be a valuable source of protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12.

"An integrated approach to the evidence also shows that many foods of animal origin are nourishing and healthy if consumed in modest amounts," it said.

The report pointed to excess body fat as a major cancer risk and noted that, "diets with high levels of animal fats are often relatively high in energy, increasing the risk of weight gain." It linked excess body fat to cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon and rectum, endometrium and kidney, along with breast cancer in post-menopausal women.

To view the entire report, click here.

Industry response

The American Meat Institute (AMI) said the study's meat intake recommendations, "reflect WCRF's well-known anti-meat bias and should be met with skepticism because they oversimplify the complex issue of cancer, are not supported by the data and defy common sense."

"Given the complexities and conflicting research findings, it is inconceivable that WCRF could draw definitive conclusions and make such precise recommendations about specific food categories," said AMI Foundation Vice President of Scientific Affairs Randy Huffman, noting the causes of cancer involve factors like genetics, the environment, lifestyle and a host of other issues.

AMI also disputed the report's recommendations on processed meats. "Our own systematic review of the literature by independent epidemiologists has documented that 15 of 16 comparisons regarding processed meat and colorectal cancer were not statistically significant," said Huffman.

Harvard data

Huffman also questioned why WCRF didn't take into account a 2004 Harvard School of Public Health analysis that concluded that red meat and processed meat were not associated with colon cancer.

He said the Harvard study, involving 725,000 men and women, was presented at the 2004 American Association for Cancer Research Conference in abstract form but never has been published in its entirety.

Huffman called the Harvard paper, Meat and fat intake and colorectal cancer risk: A pooled analysis of 14 prospective studies, the largest study ever done on red meat and colon cancer. He said lawmakers are now asking Harvard why the study has not been published, given its completion three years ago and its federal funding.

The point is, again, how much can we trust epi studies? We can design a study to say almost anything; whether we can get it published is another issue. Should you refute a published study with an unpublished study? Or is it, as they imply, refuting a p.c. study with a politically blocked study?

How not to be part of the problem

Good, timely article in the NYT today about MRSA and antibacterial . . . umm . . . stuff.

MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus, which caused, apparently, 19,000 deaths in the last year, 2 recently in healthy high schoolers.

antibacterial stuff: soaps, toys, cutting boards, etc. that have been impregnated with triclosan (an antibiotic) to prevent bacterial growth.

There is no direct epidemiological link between the two, but lab tests seem to indicate that over-use of the latter can lead to the former. (Interesting side note: should we reject a theory for lack of epi back-up, even though it works in the lab? Even when we also reject theories for lack of lab back-up, even when there's a statistical link in epi studies? Are we biased in our trust of the two methods?) Do we over-use the stuff?

If you want to control bacterial growth on stuff, as the article suggests, alcohol-based cleaners work better. If you want to control bacterial growth on your hands, ditto, but soap and water works too. Just in case, lets be sensible.

Geniuses can be stupid, too

James Watson has been known to say stupid things about women, but now he's added Africans -- apparently, he thinks there's no reason for them to be as smart as Caucasians. After all, tests have proven it!

Much as I generally don't agree with Stephen Jay Gould, just read The Mismeasure of Man. Tests don't measure IQ (or IQ doesn't measure intelligence, if you prefer). We have to acknowledge that cultural familiarity plays a role in both questions and answers. I'm sure that an African-created IQ test would show the same differences . . . in the opposite direction.

Food is a right

I hadn't seen anything worth the trouble of writing in a while, but apparently I missed World Food Day. It's good to see so many countries coming out in support of food as a human right (after all, if life is a right, food has to be a right). My one question: where was the US and why didn't we hear about this?

The oracle and Delphi

Yes, Taubes strikes another blow at the epidemiologic stronghold! This time, though, he has a point . . .

Namely, people can be influenced by a strong opinion, especially if they aren't certain and/or multiple people express the same opinion. Peer pressure by any other name . . . it can certainly affect any study that requires expert opinions to fill data gaps.

That's why there's this great thing called the Delphi method. Basically, a survey is sent to a panel of experts (or they are interviewed, whatever your method). They are asked to answer a series of questions. Those answers are compiled for each question (range and mean for numerical data, lists for qualitative answers) and sent back to the panel with a fresh copy of the same survey. The experts can then change their answer based on what other people answered without one loud voice dominating. This process is repeated a few times, simulating discussion. Et voila! a consensus is reached in which everyone has an equal voice. A friend of mine used this method in his MS research and it worked quite well.

The price of free things

Health agencies are starting to focus on giving away bed nets in Africa.

If you've been reading this for a while, you know how I feel about giveaways -- they cause dependency and ruin local producers/merchants! No hand-outs!

Except . . . giving away bed nets seems to be equivalent to giving away vaccines: bed nets actually have a protective effect on the community if used by a sufficient number of residents. First, really?--cool! Second, public health issues are actually considered to be areas in which the well-being of all benefits from public funding. Just like vaccines, it's in the public interest to provide bed nets to those who can't afford them.

So why the debate? Well, there are always a few small government advocates who want everything to be in the private sector. Also, some people don't like to let go of an idea once they get hold of it. I was once told that the correct answer to any question asked by an epidemiologist is 'it depends'. For the people who still cling to the concept that giving away free goods is the least cost-efficient development scheme, add this caveat: only if the societal benefit of the giveaway is less than the societal cost. In this case, that assumption fails, so we must change our stance and encourage bed net giveaways.

Can we even trust epidemiology?

Another class assignment! In this case, just forcing me to do a more thorough review of an article I meant to review anyways. Here it is:

What level of proof is necessary to make a claim? That seems to be the question Taubes is asking in “Do we really know what makes us healthy.” I would posit that a more appropriate question would be ‘how do we interpret our claims?’

Taubes doubts the validity of epidemiological arguments based on his understanding of statistics as “tools . . . that may be unreliable” and “circumstantial evidence” that should be barely trusted, and only until clinical evidence is available. In one sense, he is right: as a science based on probabilities, epidemiology can be done badly and misused, with results that are untrustworthy. What about epidemiology done right? Sampling biases still exist: healthy users, atypical study subjects, compliance. Diagnostics are imperfect and that can bias results. Some confounders are unknown or immeasurable. However, dealing with these issues is one of the purposes of peer review. Taubes claims that the first report is untrustworthy simply because it lacks that peer review, ignoring the review process that is required to make that report. Any report published without peer review is indeed suspect, but that is true in any field. To re-quote John Bailar, “The appropriate question is not whether there are uncertainties about epidemiologic data, rather, it is whether the uncertainties are so great that one cannot draw useful conclusions from the data.”

The problem may come, not from the science itself, but from the understanding and application of the results. Taubes quotes an editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine on the role of the media in this debacle, namely, that the lay media interprets studies wrong. Rather than seeing an association as it is, they insist on a causative – it’s just easier to report. When a majority of these causations fail to materialize (although the associations may still be present), Taubes suggests they should reject epidemiology as an untrustworthy source.

Rejecting epidemiologic studies on the whole because a majority have been refuted is not a sensible choice. For example, many movies and even more books have poor to dismal ratings from tough critics; should I then reject all such media because the majority are considered bad? I would rather focus on the good, even if they are in the minority. That, of course, requires close, skeptical reading on the part of the science reporters.

Taubes champions the experimental study as the savior of epidemiologic conclusions. After all, if we can prove that the epidemiologists were right, we can ‘trust’ them (for a certain value of trust). However, one of the older studies he cites is ethically questionable (Goldberger trying to infect himself and colleagues) and the new studies he considers have plausibility problems of their own (H.R.T. studies choosing different subject types). In many cases, experimental studies are simply not possible, as Taubes admits. Why, then, does he end with a suggestion to wait for clinical trials to back up the epidemiologic associations?

The main problem with this entire debate, however, is the differing viewpoints. Taubes writes to inform the individual readers, who will try to apply the results of epidemiologic studies to their own lives. As any epidemiologist knows, those studies are not meant to predict individual results. To an individual, population-level data is a step removed. Maybe the problem comes simply in the application, stepping down to the micro what is meant to be macro – in other words, the ecologic fallacy.

It could happen here?

Think I wasn't accurate about the UK being a little unlucky? Well, turns out their most recent FMD problem could happen here, too.

Just so you know. I mean, if I'm going to stay up at night worrying, why shouldn't you?

Unlucky? Unlikely

Somebody asked Slate.com why British cattle get so many diseases.

Ummm . . .

Let's talk about information bias. To be specific, diagnostic bias and reporting bias. The UK has a fantastic diagnostic service. The UK also reports any diseases it finds. Therefore, the UK reports a lot of disease outbreaks. In sub-Saharan Africa, which has 75% of the world's disease burden according to a recent lecture I attended, there is no money for diagnostic services, so even strict reporting (which is unlikely) wouldn't lead to a lot of outbreak reports. Ditto for Southeast Asia -- diagnostics are lacking and reporting is low. China, on the other hand, probably has good diagnostic services; they don't report many outbreaks because they choose not to report what they find.

The reporting bias is an important point. On Promed, outbreaks in some countries are reported by the OIE or the country involved; outbreaks in other countries are reported by field workers or locals. If we only consider outbreaks in countries where reporting is through official channels, those (few) countries will look disease-ridden compared to the rest.

Okay, there may be some luck (or lack) involved in the case of the UK. I'm not sure Heathrow is a bigger international hub than Schipol or LAX. I'm not sure the UK has a bigger smuggling problem. They just got unlucky with FMD.

In the case of BSE, though, we got lucky that it happened in the UK. They diagnosed it (and fixed it) faster than most countries could have. Think SARS or avian influenza, but with no obvious animal link -- how long would it have taken Thailand to figure it out or China to tell us about it?

Zoonotic diseases? From livestock? You're kidding, right?

This is a serious problem; urban agriculture is a growing segment of the livestock industry in many low-income countries with large, sprawling cities. Especially with the lack of good water treatment facilities or sewage control -- the sewers were one of the biggest gains in public health in human history, so what happens if we don't have them and we have all sorts of livestock spreading manure in our cities? In traditional systems, we didn't have this problem because animals were kept out on ranges. Of course, the animal caretakers had issues to deal with . . . and still do . . . but now consumers are at risk.

This doesn't even address the issue of free-ranging animals in urban areas (cattle in India, poultry and small ruminants in many other areas). They could spread disease directly, as well as from their waste. No solutions from me, sorry -- this is a sticky issue that needs a lot of attention.

FAO sees disease threat from increase global meat production

By Janie Gabbett on 9/18/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Increase global meat and poultry production to meet escalating demand has pushed production closer to urban areas, increasing the risk of animal to human disease transmission, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

"The risk of disease transmission from animals to humans will increase in the future due to human and livestock population growth, dynamic changes in livestock production, the emergence of worldwide agro-food networks and a significant increase in the mobility of people and goods," FAO said in a policy brief titled "Industrial Livestock Production and Global Health Risks."

It warned the risk of pathogen transfer is increased by: animal movement; the concentration of confined animals; and the waste produced by large animal houses.

With global pig and poultry production growing the fastest, the FAO cited a trend towards industrialized livestock production replacing traditional systems in developing countries, most notably in Asia, South American and parts of Africa.

It also raised concerns that most chickens and turkeys in industrialized nations are now produced in houses with 15,000 to 50,000 birds and that both poultry and pig production rely on significant animal movement.

The FAO called on meat producers to: apply basic biosecurity measures, refrain from building production sites too close to human settlements or wild bird populations, regularly clean and disinfect farms, control staff and vehicles movement and train employees in biosecurity.

A long-overdue study

What are the international trade barriers to US beef, and how do they effect the industry?

Are you kidding? Haven't they done this before now?!?! For all I know, of course, this is just a duplication of somebody's thesis that never got read . . .

ITC to investigate international trade barriers on U.S. beef

By Tom Johnston on 9/17/2007 for Meatingplace.com

The U.S. International Trade Commission said on Friday it launched a probe into the effects of international trade restrictions on U.S. beef.

The ITC investigation follows a request by the Senate's Finance Committee, which lamented the economic impact of restrictions by Japan and South Korea on the U.S. beef industry. (See Senator wants audit of Asian barriers on U.S. beef on Meatingplace.com, Aug. 8, 2007.)

The commission said it would provide an overview of the U.S. and global markets for beef, as well as information on animal health, sanitary, and food safety measures facing U.S. and other major beef exporters. It will also will render information on other barriers to U.S. beef exports in major foreign markets, including high tariffs, quotas and import licensing and distribution systems, as well as analyze their economic effects.

The ITC is slated to submit its report to the Senate's Finance Committee on June 6, 2008. It will hold a public hearing related to the investigation at 9:30 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007. Requests to appear should be filed with the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20436, by 5:15 p.m. Oct. 18.

Sensible classes? Real-world ideas? Yes, thank you.

I know, I've been away for a little while (busy, sick, etc), but I've built up a backlog of articles to comment on, so here goes:

MIT apparently started classes in basic technologies that could be used in countries with infrastructure or supply issues. Simple, useful ideas for heating, cooking, powering, processing -- this is exactly the sort of thing more development agencies should be doing.

Now, if only we could get the classes held on-site . . .

Not again!

British farmers can't catch a break. Also, the government needs to start contacting people, if this article is anything to go by.

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: ProMED-mail <promed@promed.isid.harvard.edu>
Subject: PRO/AH/EDR> Foot & mouth disease, bovine - UK (England) (21): new, conf

FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE, BOVINE - UK (ENGLAND) (21): NEW, CONFIRMED
******************************

**********************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007
Source: BBC News [edited]
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6990913.stm>


New foot-and-mouth case confirmed
- ---------------------------------
A new case of foot-and-mouth disease [FMD] has been confirmed in the
same county as the UK's last outbreak.

The government has set up a 10km (6.2 mile) control zone centred on
the affected farm near Egham, Surrey, and a pre-emptive slaughter has
been ordered.

A national movement ban has been put in place to prevent the disease
spreading from Milton Park Farm, Stroude Road.

A report into the August [2007] outbreak blamed a leaking pipe at the
Pirbright animal research site in Surrey.

The latest outbreak comes just days after the government declared
Surrey to be FMD free.

Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers' Union, said it was
a "disaster" for British agriculture.

"The industry will be devastated that all the hard work it has put in
to eradicate the outbreaks of 3 Aug and 8 Aug 2007 when the whole
industry was completely locked up for a long time," he said.

Dr Reynolds, said the control zone was put in place swiftly because
"containment and eradication of FMD is our top priority".

She urged farmers to remain vigilant and report any suspicions.

The EU has halted plans to lift the export ban on livestock products
from the area around the original outbreak.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is due to chair a meeting of the Cobra
emergency committee at 1700 BST (1600 GMT).

A farmer at Stroude Farm, Stroude Road, said he had heard nothing of the news.

He said: "This has made me go all cold. It was only Monday [10 Sep
2007] that they opened up the country after the last time.

"I can't believe it's happening again. I have heard nothing about it.
You'd think they'd let us know."

The Cobra meeting will take place once the government has received the results.

The control zone was set up around the suspected outbreak at 0935 BST.

Earlier in the summer, 2 farms tested positive for the disease but
the all-clear has since been given.

FMD was confirmed in a herd of cattle at Woolford Farm in Surrey on 3 Aug 2007.

A 2nd case, at a farm nearby, was confirmed on 7 Aug 2007.

A report into the previous outbreak found it was probably caused by
leaking drains, heavy rain and building work at the Pirbright site, 4
miles from where the disease was originally found.

But the Health and Safety Executive said it was not clear which of
the 2 labs which share the site - Merial, a private pharmaceutical
company, and the Institute of Animal Health (IAH) - were responsible.

- --
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail Rapporteur Mary Marshall

[ProMED-mail would like to thank Chris Griot for submitting the
original alert that this outbreak was identified, shortly before the
laboratory confirmation was received. - Mod.MPP]

[DEFRA's press release on the suspected outbreak in Wegham (seemingly
confirmed in the meantime) is available at
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/animal-0912.htm>.

The declaration of a control zone, including a map, is available at
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/pdf/declaration-tcz120907-2.pdf>.

Details on the affected holding, number, species and age of the
animals involved, proximity to other animal holdings, the estimated
age of the erosions (if observed) and the suspected route(s) of
introduction, are anticipated. If in case clinical symptoms have been
observed now, the virus may have been circulating on the premises for
some time, up to several weeks. Unravelling the source and route of
the pathogen's introduction are crucial for the decisions on the due
steps which may be needed to contain the outbreak and subsequently
regain the UK's freedom of FMD. The earlier such information becomes
available, the earlier efficient measures may be applied, free
movement of animals of susceptible species within the UK is
reinstituted and UK's international trade in animals and their
products may be resumed. - Mod. AS].