The Government’s TB Eradication Strategy allows the continued killing of badgers, a protected species, until the end of this Parliament, despite the Labour manifesto calling the cull “ineffective.”
We believe the badger cull is unjustified and must end.
Some research has suggested culling results in a reduction in bovine TB (bTB) in cattle. However, there are concerns about the methodology used. Other research, which has been peer reviewed and published, shows no evidence that culling badgers reduces confirmed bTB in cattle. Over 230,000 badgers — many healthy — have been killed, disrupting ecosystems without solid scientific justification.
We call for an immediate end to the cull and the implementation of cattle focused measures to control bTB, rather than what we see as scapegoating wildlife.
We fully support this petition and would encourage you to add your name. Encourage others who care about badgers, effective disease control and the correct interpretation of science to sign too. Let’s see it reach 100,000 signatures & get a parliamentary debate.
Bovine TB failings in Oxfordshire and beyond in 2023
The “Year End Descriptive Epidemiology Reports” for Bovine TB control were published by APHA online on 24th October for the Edge Area counties of: Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire.
The report for Oxfordshire is the most extensive of the county reports (see here). What does it tell us about the progress made on bTB control as measured by cattle herds withdrawn (so-called ‘confirmed’ breakdowns) in Oxfordshire? And what does it tell us about APHA’s approach to epidemiological standards? It looks like they are still blaming wildlife by default………….
Ups and Downs
In Oxfordshire, following a continual decrease in OTF-W (Officially TB Free Withdrawn) breakdown incidents since 2018, the number of incidents rose from 31 in 2022 to 41 in 2023, which is similar to the numbers of incidents in 2020 (47 OTF-W). The number of OTF-S (Officially TB Free Suspended) incidents also rose slightly from 25 in 2022 to 28 in 2023. This is the highest number of OTF-S incidents in the last 10 years.
The APHA say that having originated in West Oxfordshire, East Oxfordshire is now the main driver of bTB spread in the county, especially during the last three years, with an increase of OTF-W incidents in 2023. This suggests that TB is actively spreading in East Oxfordshire, despite the initial decrease in the total number of incidents and following use of interferon gamma (IFN-γ) blood testing and increased SICCT testing in 2018.
Unscientific inference
Despite APHA’s consistent inability to scientifically attribute bTB disease benefit to badger culling, they casually state that persistent incidents have decreased due to“implementing control measures such as badger culling since 2019”.
In 2023, additional Defra approved ancillary tests (IFN-Y & IDEXX) for use in Oxfordshire to “remove infection in incidents where the level of reinfection from purchases and wildlife was believed to be low, but where the effect of residual infection was preventing incidents from becoming clear”. It is not clear what exactly leads APHA to believe infection in wildlife is low in this instance, when they consistently say that it is high elsewhere. Perhaps due to removal by shooting of around 2,500 badgers in Oxfordshire’s Cull Area 49 (West Oxfordshire) in an area overlapping with Gloucestershire?
Deer are next in the blame game
Reports of suspicion of TB in wild deer increased in 2023. This is likely due to the creation in 2022 of the Oxfordshire Cluster Project, which offered training to local deer stalkers to identify typical lesions of TB in game carcasses.
Not surprisingly with greater checks, wild deer carcasses with TB lesions were reported to APHA in 2023: two roe deer, one fallow and one muntjac. All were sampled and sent for TB culture and bTB clade B6-62 was confirmed in all of them which is the common clade in Oxfordshire cattle. Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) was employed by APHA to link “incidents to specific cattle incidents in the same geographical area”, with a claim of ”further evidence of the relationship between cattle and local wildlife in the transmission of TB”, without evidence of the relationship and direction of infection. Inconclusive epidemiology.
The Bird-flu distraction claim
The APHA also claim that an increase in recorded bTB incidence in cattle in 2023 followed an emergency interim action in December 2021, diverting APHA staff to addressing the 2021-2023 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks. Gamma testing was prioritized to the LRA and Edge Area counties on 12-month testing (not 6-monthly) during that time, further reducing the number of tests in Oxfordshire. APHA view this change in gamma policy as likely to have contributed to slowing the decrease in incidence in 2022 and for the increase in 2023, amongst other factors. However, in addition, the reduction of EU finance after Brexit was a driver to reducing disease eradication effort.
APHA in a muddle?
APHA say that licensed intensive badger culling operations started in the west side of Oxfordshire in 2019, while the first large area in Oxfordshire was Cull Area 49 commencing 2020. In 2021 a Cull Area 61 further north was commenced with an additional Cull Area 69 on the East side of the county starting 2022.
Guess-estimated Cull Area boundaries in Oxfordshire with year of start
APHA claim that badger culling has “probably started to have a positive impact in western areas of the county but not yet in the… east of the county where TB is spreading further east.” This is simply more unevidenced guesswork and is completely unacceptable, probably driven by one or two individuals who have over-invested in badger blame and who stands to lose a lot from being wrong about the whole sad process and because they have mislead hundreds of others.
Clusters
APHA claim that “clusters” of bTB breakdowns provide evidence of local spread, and say that where local cattle purchase has not occurred, cattle herd incidents are most likely caused by wildlife. Once again they are speculating – pointing by default to badgers where there is no obvious purchase of cattle to blame; undetected disease in the herd and very many other possibilities are once again ignored.
Clusters were first identified in Oxfordshire in 2017. WGS investigations and ‘phylogenetic trees’ have increased knowledge of the transmission of M. bovis, but APHA say that they ”cannot always” answer the direction of transmission and/or ancestry due to limited numbers of isolates. But in truth this is not possible in any of their investigations – they need to stop pretending and misleading readers of their reports. And the farmers should not put up with these misdescriptions – it is costing them dearly to be given inaccurate advice.
We know that badgers have been tested for bTB in cluster areas but how this work is being done is hidden in secrecy.
Unevidenced ‘risk pathways’ again
APHA list the following main ‘risk pathway’s and key drivers for TB infection within Oxfordshire in 2023 in the following order:
exposure to infected local wildlife
movement of undetected infected cattle
residual infection from previous incidents.
Astonishingly, the APHA still put infected wildlife at the top of their list of risk factors for TB incidents in cattle in 2023. Could this be because they are still using the discredited Disease Report Form (DRF), which blames badgers by default, when there is no clear infection route from cattle? There was an impression in 2023 that the DRF was being phased out but APHA seem trapped in a neglectful poorly functioning system where blaming badgers fills the gap of attribution being uncertain due to inadequate investigation and testing.
These incidents are far more likely to be from undetected disease in cattle. Once again without evidence, APHA still pedal the same old rhetoric that they have still been telling vets and farmers: “most common source of transmission from wildlife identified during on-farm investigations were potentially infected badgers, but the presence of other wildlife species such as wild deer is increasingly reported in some areas”. Adding as some kind of ‘get out of jail if wrong’ statement that there is “high uncertainty as to their [bagders] role in transmitting TB to cattle”. It’s an utter disaster area. They also admit that distinguishing source attribution between badgers and residual cattle infection in recurrent incidents is difficult, but claim it is likely “a combination” of both factors. Muddling cattle movements with unevidenced badger infection somehow suits their old arguments but muddles vet and farmer understanding. Basically, the APHA are still pointing to badgers as an important source of infection, misleading the industry without any evidence. .
Tricking the vets and farmers – residual infection is the key
As now appreciated by the BBC 2 documentary on the work of the Save Me Trust and Dick Sibley in Devon and elsewhere – looking at the APHA reporting of 3 yearly recurrence data and recurrence in the lifetime herd history, you can see that 82% of incidents reported across Oxfordshire were in herds with a history of TB during the herd’s lifetime, including more than 3 years previously. Recurrence of bTB is due to undetected residual infection coupled with cattle movements. It is the result of insensitive tests. This is where the problem lies and with current approaches APHA have no chance of disease control – it is one huge failure.
Whilst APHA do accept residual cattle infection as an important problem and note the tendency of incidents in Oxfordshire to be more chronic and recurrent, they still cling on to badger blame. Why they do so is extraordinary, but relates to a shrinking group of individuals so wedded to it being the case; as a group they dare not change position. The only thing that will make that happen is if farmers and vets stand up to how they are being grossly mislead by those who effectively control them.
Introduction of systematic supplementary Gamma testing since 2018 has increased the overall sensitivity of testing in herds and reduced the likelihood of infection being left in the herd at the end of a TB incident. Good progress was being made but (as above) this supplementary testing has been reduced in the last two years and targeted to a limited number of herds with recurrent and persistent incidents. Absolute madness – why are the livestock farmers not jumping up and down about this slackening off?
Sadly, the picture is the same across other counties. In Cheshire, for example, 86% of incidents reported across the region were in herds with a history of TB in the herds lifetime, including in the three previous years. It’s really not rocket science.
A messy complicated picture
The number of herd incidents of TB per year in Oxfordshire remained high over the last 5 years, with a decreasing trend in 2021 and 2022, before reverting in 2023 to the same levels as seen in 2020. The epidemiological picture has become more complex in recent years with multiple clusters, some of which have only recently become apparent. APHA say that this “does not favour the long-term objective of reducing OTF-W incidence to less than 1% in Oxfordshire by 2038.”
The future look bleak
British farming is staring down the barrel of an even greater bTB disaster. APHA and their badger blame game story are in danger of making a new High Risk Area out of the Edge Area and risk infecting the entire country.
APHA are at least emphasizing the importance of the early detection of infection through more frequent surveillance testing of cattle herds, alongside the use of mandatory gamma testing on all OTF-W incidents. And now alongside other Defra approved ancillary testing by informed case management, recognising lack of sensitivity of current tests (SICCT) as a potential issue. But not with sufficient emphasis and determination to mend the current broken system. Disciplined pre and post movement testing are still approached in an ineffective way, despite their pivotal role in stopping transmission. This has been clearly known and ignored since 2018 when the issue was pointed out to the Godfray Review..
APHA’s continued blaming of badgers for a significant proportion of cattle bTB infections is now a real barrier to disease control that risks pulling the beef and dairy industries further into disaster. The scientific evidence APHA skews to blame badgers is ridiculous and as the 2038 ambition dissolves, the stakes are being raised higher and higher. Who will be the first to realise and take urgent action to prevent the worsening of this national disaster? Those in charge might answer.
If it had been known last Christmas that a Labour government would be in power by July of this year, an imminent end of the cull would have been anticipated. With a public inquiry set up into how the killing of 230,000 badgers could ever have been allowed to happen. The science supporting culling has continued to become increasingly uncertain and is now close to breaking point (here) with many learned institutions poised to be shaken over one of the more serious biological revelations for a generation.
Labour had pledged that it would end the cull, even put a statement in their manifesto that labelled badger culling ‘ineffective’ to send the message to voters. Surely it would end immediately, as ineffective = unlawful to continue. Voters must have had that in mind when they voted.
Unfortunately, that is not the way things went. True, the plan that would otherwise have moved forward for ‘targeted‘ or ‘epidemiological’ culling was well and truly scrapped (here). But incredibly Defra and Natural England hung on by their fingertips to the increasingly frail scientific justification for the ‘model’ that is the Cumbria Area 32/Hotspot 21 ‘Low Risk Area’ 100% cull. They have added a new cull area next door to its failed exemplar (here). This is to continue until 2027 at least and, just possibly, more areas could be added, potentially lasting until the end of this Parliament (2029). ‘Intensive’ and ‘Supplementary’ culling remain in place this year and next.
In Cumbria, the area north of the old cull area has been infected with bTB. Why? Because trading of infected stock continues from infected herds incorrectly declared TB-Free nearby, and cattle testing is only done every four years. Which is truly crazy so close to the original hotspot. Farms within 15 Km of hotspots sharing grazing or exchanging stock should quite obviously be on annual or more frequent testing. The breakdown investigation rules actually favour a cluster developing. APHA assumes the recorded breakdown is the index case, not a nearby farm, and allows 30 days for farms within 3.0 Km radius of the breakdown to sell off stock before radial testing begins. It’s a neglectful recipe for creating a TB cluster. It is one of the things Reed and Zeichner needed to fix in Week 1, and civil servants should have told them so.
Why has ineffectual TB management perpetuated – why is the new broom still in the cupboard? Apparently, around a year ago, with Labour uncertain of winning a big electoral majority, Steve Reed then the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave assurances to the NFU that ‘some’ badger culling would be allowed to continue. He did this without a good knowledge of the issue, and apparently without the knowledge of Party researchers. It was a sleazy back door deal for political support in 2024.
Over the last four weeks or so in September, badger blood mixed with persistent rain, as around 10,000 badgers were needlessly shot, often inhumanely. More will die this month at an average rate of 300 a day. Another 10,000 or so badgers are to be killed next year, and an unspecified, smaller number will be killed in 2027 until 2029, because Steve Reed made a pre-election commitment to keep culling going – without understanding the real disease control needs – for political gain.
But we have seen this before. In Northern Ireland in 2021 the Ulster Farmers Union had a similar commitment to ‘wildlife intervention’ (i.e. badger culling) from the ‘top’ in DAERA that they were impatient to see brought forward (Case 2021 here). This was done by suggesting that there was a need (unevidenced scientifically) for badger culling to accompany better cattle testing. Dodgy deals behind people’s backs, for political gain, and irrespective of the cost to the taxpayer. It has to stop.
The figures speaks for themselves. Herd BTB breakdowns in the very first cull area in Gloucestershire have changed little since 2013, after nine years of persistent badger culling.
With a downward trend in ‘confirmed’ (OTFW) breakdowns prior to the start of culling, data is consistent with benefits from continued enhanced cattle controls hitting the limits of their effectiveness. But the poor sensitivity of the skin test has retained diseased cattle less responsive to the SICCT and gamma test, and kept the area as diseased as it was at the start. Elsewhere in Gloucestershire it’s a similar story. A humiliating moment for Defra and APHA, who know that badger culling is ineffective and that the BTB testing procedures need a revolution, much as they do in Republic of Ireland. There is a dire need to drill down on the disease, especially in the larger dairy herds. Without this £Millions of taxpayer and farmers money will be wasted each week chasing impossible outcomes.
Area 1-Gloucestershire has seen a large percentage rise in number of cattle (up by 20% or 4,124), despite the number of herds decreasing by 13. It is well known that disease rises as herds get larger, so why are the public being asked to support a process that is making things worse? And who is going to step up to resolve the crisis?
The continuing questions over uncertainty in the published outcome of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) have rumbled on over the summer of 2024, and were reported on (here).
Why are the statistical elements of the RBCT so important? Because the government badger cull policy rests all but entirely on them. It was the science that DEFRA has used to create policy and in court to defend their decisions to experiment with badger culling. The RBCT claimed badger culling can reduce bovine TB in cattle; very many subsequent studies are heavily derived from it, to the point that if it is wrong, it will send a wrecking ball through dozens of publications, reports and reviews. The stakes could not be higher.
Disease benefits claimed for badger culling by civil servants and politicians are in reality, far more likely due to implementation of additional cattle measures. But there is continued inference that badger culling is a cause of disease reduction because such benefits might be “predicted” from the results of the RBCT.
The chronology of published and pre-printed science on the statistical analysis of the RBCT as it relates to proactive culling is growing, so here is a summary with clickable links:
The ‘Comment’ submission to the Royal Society Open Science is an extensive response to the two new Mills et al. (2024) papers which reproduced much of Torgerson et al.’s models, whilst re-interpreting the results.
The abstract of the Torgerson et al. ‘Comment’ is as follows:
Abstract Re-evaluation of statistical analysis of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) by Torgerson et al. 2024 was rebutted by Mills et al. 2024 Parts I and II. The rebuttal defended the use of count rather than rate when considering bovine tuberculosis herd incidence. The defence makes biologically implausible use of Information Criterion for appraisal diagnostics; overfits data; and has erroneous Bayesian analyses. It favours ‘goodness of fit’ over ‘predictive power’, for a small data set, when the study was to inform application. Importantly, for ‘total’ bTB breakdown: (‘confirmed’ (OTF-W) +‘unconfirmed’ (OTF-S)), where modern interpretation of the main diagnostic bTB test better indicates the incidence rate of herd breakdown, there is no effect in cull and neighbouring areas, across all statistical models. The RBCT was a small, single experiment with unknown factors. With respect to the paradigm of reproducibility and the FAIR principles, the original RBCT analysis and recent efforts to support it are wholly unconvincing. The 2006 conclusion of the RBCT that “badger culling is unlikely to contribute positively to the control of cattle TB in Britain” is supported, but the route to such a position is revised in the light of modern veterinary understanding and statistical reappraisal.
The new Comment, that has not yet been peer-reviewed, highlights what is described as selective reporting, misleading interpretation, implausible model selection and coding anomalies. It will be of interest to Ministers, Civil Servants, scientists and politicians who currently, under the new Labour administration, are ‘refreshing’ the bovine TB strategy, and policy.
The two Mills et al. papers were published just a few days before the Intensive and Supplementary badger cull licences were issued for 2024, providing a rationale for culling to continue.
Defra has today (30th August 2024) announced plans for a refreshed bovine TB control badger strategy. Whilst it is good to see a clearly stated intention to stop culling badgers, that this will not happen before the end of the current parliament (2029) is completely unacceptable. These plans propose five more years of badger culling, all without sound scientific basis, and would result in the total number of culled badgers exceeding 300,000, all with no measurable disease benefit.
It is equally disappointing to see proposals for mass badger vaccination to be employed as a tool against bovine TB in cattle. This is an unwelcome, and scientifically unjustified continuation of the badger blame game. The scientific evidence just does not support the continued focus on badgers as a significant source of bovine TB in cattle, despite ill-informed media reports in recent weeks. It is a complete waste of resources when the real need is to retrain vets on the science of bovine TB and wildlife, over which they have been misled for many years, and to change cattle testing policy.
While we welcome the statement that “The full strategy will be co-designed with farmers, vets, scientists and conservationists”, we are somewhat sceptical about how inclusive this will be. There has been no engagement with scientists involved in important peer-reviewed science (here and here), despite frequent requests for meetings or at least dialogue. Will there be continued resistance to accept published science that challenges the views of those civil servants at Defra who have been pushing un-evidenced, expensive and unethical policy for so long? An uncomfortable history of bad decision making by those who need to stand aside to allow genuine progress.
Not mentioned in the statement, is the 22nd August consultation on licensing of a new badger cull in the Low Risk Area (LRA). It looks likely that Labour are not just re-authorising existing licences, they are planning to start new licences in new areas, this one in Cumbria in the Eden valley north and east of Penrith. This will have a 100% cull objective, repeating the failed epi-cull of the immediately adjoining area, the subject of a report last year (see here). There are rumours that two further LRA culls may be licenced this autumn or next, possibly in Lincolnshire and Hertfordshire / Bucks and who knows where else?
Here is the Defra announcement in full:
Government to end badger cull with new TB eradication strategy
First Bovine TB strategy in a decade to end badger cull and drive down TB rates to protect farmers livelihoods
New holistic approach will ramp up cattle control measures, wildlife monitoring and badger vaccinations
Proposals co-designed alongside farmers, vets, scientists, and conservationists to beat TB that devastates livestock farmers and wildlife
Work on a comprehensive new TB eradication strategy has been launched today (30 August) to end the badger cull and drive down Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) rates to save cattle and farmers’ livelihoods.
Over the past decade, TB has had a devastating impact on threatened British livestock and wildlife. Over 278,000 cattle have been compulsorily slaughtered and over 230,000 badgers have been killed in efforts to control the disease, costing taxpayers more than £100 million every year.
For the first time in over a decade, the Government will introduce a new bovine TB eradication strategy working with farmers, vets, scientists and conservationists to rapidly strengthen and deploy a range of disease control measures.
The new strategy will mark a significant step-change in approach to tackle this devastating disease, driving down TB rates and saving farmer livelihoods and businesses. It will use a data-led and scientific approach to end the badger cull by the end of this parliament.
The work to end the badger cull starts immediately and includes:
First badger population survey in over a decade: The last major badger survey was carried out between 2011-13, leaving policy makers with no clear idea of the impact culling techniques have on our badger populations. The Government will work at pace to launch a new survey this winter to estimate badger abundance and population recovery to illustrate the impact of widespread culling over the past decade.
New national wildlife surveillance programme: After a decade of culling, the prevalence of TB in remaining badger populations is largely unknown. The development of a new national wildlife surveillance programme will provide an up-to-date understanding of disease in badgers and other wildlife such as deer. Together with updated estimates of badger abundance, this will unlock a data-driven approach to inform how and where TB vaccines and other eradication measures are rapidly deployed to drive down TB rates and protect farmers’ livelihoods.
Establish a new Badger Vaccinator Field Force: Badger vaccinations create progressively healthier badger populations that are less susceptible to catching and transmitting TB. A new Badger Vaccinator Field Force will increase badger vaccination at pace to drive down TB rates and protect badgers.
Badger vaccination study: To supplement the Field Force, the Government will rapidly analyse the effect of badger vaccination on the incidence of TB in cattle to encourage farmers to take part and provide greater confidence that doing so will have a positive effect on their cattle.
In addition, we will accelerate work on the development of a cattle vaccine, whichis at the forefront of innovative solutions to help eradicate this disease. The next stage of field trials will commence in the coming months. Our aim is to deliver an effective cattle TB vaccination strategy within the next few years to accelerate progress towards achieving officially TB free (OTF) status for England.
The full strategy will be co-designed with farmers, vets, scientists and conservationists. It will consider a range of further measures including boosting cattle testing, reducing the spread of disease through cattle movements, and deploying badger vaccination on a wider, landscape scale. This will build on Professor Sir Charles Godfray’s 2018 independent strategy review.
Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, Daniel Zeichner said:
“Bovine tuberculosis has devastated British farmers and wildlife for far too long.
“It has placed dreadful hardship and stress on farmers who continue to suffer the loss of valued herds and has taken a terrible toll on our badger populations.
“No more. Our comprehensive TB eradication package will allow us to end the badger cull by the end of this parliament and stop the spread of this horrific disease.”
“Bovine tuberculosis is one of the most difficult and prolonged animal disease challenges we face, causing devastation for farming communities.
“There is no single way to combat it, and a refreshed strategy will continue to be led by the very best scientific and epidemiological evidence. With the disease on a downward trajectory, we are at a crucial point. Working in collaboration with government and stakeholders will be the only way we achieve our target to eradicate bovine tuberculosis in England by 2038.”
John Cross, chair of the bTB Partnership said:
“As chair of the bTB Partnership for England, I am delighted to hear Minister Zeichner’s intention to refresh the current bTB strategy. Ten years after its launch, the time is right to look again at the tools we use to tackle this persistent disease.
“Bovine TB is the common enemy, not farmers or wildlife groups. Only by working together, will we reach our goal.”
The government will also publish additional information about animal and herd-level bTB risk – for example, the date and type of the most recent TB test completed in the herd of origin of that animal and how long the animal has been in the herd.
This greater level of detail will be made available on ibTB – a free to access interactive map set up to help cattle farmers and their vets understand the level of bovine TB in their area and manage the risks when purchasing cattle.
Today’s announcement ensures the government meets its manifesto commitment and represents a new direction in defeating this disease that will both protect the farming community and preserve wildlife.
Notes to editors:
Existing cull processes will be honoured to ensure clarity for farmers involved in these culls whilst new measures can be rolled out and take effect.
The Bovine TB Partnership is a stakeholder-government collaboration established as a driving force for further progress towards disease eradication. It is made up of experts from government (Defra, APHA and Natural England), as well as farmers, veterinarians, scientists, academics, and ecologists/conservationists, including representatives from the National Farmers Union, British Veterinary Association, British Cattle Veterinary Association, and the National Trust.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra’s computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.
In life generally people crave the truth, learn from the truth and act on the truth. Truth is the universal source for learning, where trust develops, and where solutions to tackle the myriad of challenges that life throws at us are fostered.
Yet, we all know that absolute truth is a fickle thing. As time passes, new insights evolve, things change. Gradually we may find that what we thought we knew is conditional on certain things, right only some of the time, or even wrong for a clever reason.
So care is needed, especially with the big decisions where large amounts of money, time and effort are employed to address a particular issue or problem.
Take for example the culling of badgers. A Government expert [1] concluded 20 odd years ago that a very small trial study [2] suggested badgers might spread bTB to cattle, especially if frightened away from the setts where they live, and shooting them would help.
Sounds ridiculous? The entire livestock industry eradication policy in GB and Ireland has been based around ‘badger blame’ for the spread of Bovine tuberculosis among cattle herds for two decades. There has been over £2 Billion of subsequent spending and hundreds of thousands of badgers have been culled around a truth that is now uncomfortable to lose, because so many people have enthusiastically believed and embraced it. They own it, and accepting it is wrong messes badly with what they have said and done over the last 20 years.
The matter came into sharp focus in March of 2024, just weeks before the general election was called, with a Government Agency staff academic paper on badger culling effort [3] in England since 2013. This, followed shortly by a DEFRA Public Consultation [4] aimed at extending badger culling for a decade or more, over further huge areas, but with even fewer constraints on when, where and how.
To the general public this is all a mystery. Surveys show that the public largely think that badger culling ended in 2020 when Government said it was ‘phasing it out’, and the new government’s election manifesto view [5] that it has been ‘ineffective’ means it will stop for good. But actually, in the cold night air, from Cornwall to Cumbria, guns with silencers are steadily slaughtering tens of thousands of badgers each autumn. As harvest 2024 is concluding, the culling is now ramping up yet again.
So what about the truth? Well Steve Barclay MP, the old Defra Minister, one of the few seniors to keep his seat during the Labour landslide, had claimed in an ebullient foreword to the March consultation, that a 56% benefit has been gained after four years of culling badgers down to under 30% of their numbers.
So let’s unpack the truth in that. Firstly, the key time marker in all this is 2016 when the first of ten large cull areas were all up and running and followed by around 60 more at a starting rate of around ten a year. Unfortunately for unpicking science and truth, this was also the time that more intensive cattle testing began ramping up. So telling between the effect of culling and testing is not possible, despite what Barclay claimed.
‘Ah’, say the boffins at the Government Agency for badger culling. ‘But without killing badgers, the cattle tests wouldn’t work so well.’
At this point most people switch off….’ I dunno…suppose it’s possible…I’m not that interested actually….’ It’s one of those speculation moments that is only so interesting given that the facts and alternatives are beyond the non-specialist’s reach and require weeks of fact-checking. This is indeed a complex issue, even for interested parties to consider.
So where did Barclay’s view come from? Well, back in 2012 the coalition government encouraged an academic paper in 2013 [6] that was timed to support badger culling, and that printed its truth, as a part of the justification for mass badger culling. The paper said a few things that we now know were right and wrong thanks to good old Captain Hindsight.
Right, was that the old small study had been rendered meaningless by a horrendous Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in 2001 [7] that mucked up the experiment’s need for ‘stable countryside’ to be able to monitor change in three of the ten areas – enough to spoil the results. The hapless NFU encouraged rapid restocking with untested TB infected cattle, firing up the bTB epidemic.
Wrong were the calculations that rested upon a belief that cattle do not give bTB to badgers. It was thought to be TB moving all one-way, from badger to cattle, that Defra believed in those days, something that was always suspicious and that modern studies now show is wrong [8-11].
And questionable too was a theory, to try to make the numbers add up in a way no one has ever explained and that looks implausible. That theoretical infections going from badger to cattle are somehow passed on more rapidly than those originating from cattle. Baffling?
Lost already? Well to make the old small study work, the boffins believed that while around 94% of disease was the result of cattle-cattle infection, around 6% was down to badgers. Unfortunately, wildlife groups have believed and utilized these figures, despite warnings, not realising it is part of a dubious study that blames badgers and the king pin in justifying the badger culls since 2013. The so called ‘onward transfer’ of infection from badger to cattle is akin to a biblical myth with no scientific legs, yet it became the truth that key people in Government believed. It was held up as the science to believe in, forming and promoting the badger cull policy. Most cull objectors had realised this by 2016.
Back to Barclay’s 56% and the boffins new paper in March 2024. Despite elaborate graphics, this was a pretty rough-and-ready analysis, looking at before and after culling and substantial cattle testing improvements in the first few years of application, and attributing the decline in herd TB breakdowns to a combination of badger culling and herd testing. It stated (twice) that it is not possible to say which factor caused the change. Yet in a discussion of the results it also said the results were consistent with effects of badger culling seen during the small study, and studies using the small studies assumptions, and this speculation found itself in the paper summary (abstract) at the front. This now gives an opportunity for apparent disease benefit to masquerade as fact or truth. Hence Barclay and the National Farmers Union ramped up the rhetoric on ‘Badger Culling Works’, and quoted the 56% benefit as a function of badger culling. Not bTB control – the better description of the mix of things being tried. Without evidence. Sunak picked up the mantle and did the same in a shed with farmers shortly before he lost office at the general election.
But the truth, as pointed out by other senior academics observing, is that these public statements were untruthful. Change might or might not have been assisted by badger culling – the very question the small RBCT study 20 odd years ago was supposed to resolve when it came up with a split answer – it possibly does and it possibly doesn’t. Flip a coin. And the real truth is that badger culling could be having some effect or it might all be down to tougher testing and movement control. Saying badger culling helped from 2013 or was pivotal or a catalyst is a bit like any of the innumerable causation arguments that created problems in science before they were recognized for what they were during the 1960’s [12]. Association is not the same as causation. Would anyone propose that Donald Trump being elected as President in 2016 caused bovine TB to start to fall? Well it happened at the same time, and bTB has come down since………..Or was the fall in TB the result of a general switch to tougher testing?
The problem for truth in this case is that Governments need to make decisions, and where there is uncertainty they need to have a plan. But Government scientists presenting their opinions as fact, for politicians and stakeholders to believe and to repeat, is a deception. A dangerous step and something that needs weeding out by journals employing peer-reviewers. And hopefully not by mournful inquiries years later, charged with working out how it all went wrong. The problem here is that there are few people experienced enough to understand and judge boffin science, and so you find your mate reviewing your work, and you review your mates work, and bad habits develop. Bovine TB science is plentiful and this syndrome sees awkward material published quite often; it provides a good exemplar of the issue called the reproducibility crisis [13]. All the Government scientists need to say is we ‘think’ it might be working because…. that is a long way from saying it ‘is’ – think snake oil salesman. It matters, it matters a lot when lots of lives and money are at stake. It matters because lying to the public is undemocratic and wrong.
So if someone asks you about badger culling, you might just say – ‘well its complicated and I don’t know.‘ But if they pick up a gun to shoot a badger, you might just say ‘hang on – I think you might be breaking the law’. Which requires evidence, and sufficient clarity that mass killing badgers to prevent the spread of bovine TB can be justified. And after 20 years there is no truth to suggest it does, only guesswork. However, cattle testing and movement control has worked in England and Wales without badger culling, so using that proven remedy is justified with some confidence and is an honest approach, if truth be told.
References
1. King, D. 2007 Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers. A report by the Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King, to the Secretary of State for Defra on 30 July 2007.
2. Donnelly, C. A. et al. Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle. Nature 439, 843–846 (2006).
3. Birch, C. P. D. et al. Difference in differences analysis evaluates the effects of the badger control policy on bovine tuberculosis in England. Sci Rep 14, 4849. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54062-4 (2024).
4. DEFRA 2024 Bovine TB: Consultation on proposals to evolve badger control policy and introduce additional cattle measures. A consultation exercise contributing to the delivery of the government’s strategy for achieving bovine tuberculosis free status in England..
6. Donnelly, C. A. & Nouvellet, P. The contribution of badgers to confirmed tuberculosis in cattle in high-incidence areas in England. PLoS Curr. 10, 5 (2013).
7. Private Eye 2001 Special Report. Not The Foot And Mouth Report. London
8. Biek R, O’Hare A, Wright D, Mallon T, McCormick C, Orton RJ, McDowell S, Trewby H, Skuce RA, Kao RR. Whole genome sequencing reveals local transmission patterns of Mycobacterium bovis in sympatric cattle and badger populations. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(11):e1003008. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003008. Epub 2012 Nov 29. PMID: 23209404; PMCID: PMC3510252.
9. Crispell J, Benton CH, Balaz D, De Maio N, Ahkmetova A, Allen A, et al. Combining genomics and epidemiology to analyse bi-directional transmission of Mycobacterium bovis in a multi-host system. Elife. 2019;8
10. Akhmetova, A; Guerrero, J; McAdam, P; Salvador, LC; Crispell, J; Lavery, J; Presho, E; Kao, RR; Biek, R; Menzies, F et al. 2021. Genomic epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis infection in sympatric badger and cattle populations in Northern Ireland. bioRxiv 2021.03.12.435101; doi: https://doi. org/10.1101/2021.03.12.435101
11. van Tonder AJ, Thornton MJ, Conlan AJK, Jolley KA, Goolding L, Mitchell AP, Dale J, Palkopoulou E, Hogarth PJ, Hewinson RG, Wood JLN, Parkhill J. Inferring Mycobacterium bovis transmission between cattle and badgers using isolates from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. PLoS Pathog. 2021 Nov 29;17(11):e1010075. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010075. PMID: 34843579; PMCID: PMC8659364.
12. Hill, Austin Bradford. “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58 (1965): 295.
13. Baker, Monya, 2016, “1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility”, Nature, 533(7604): 452–454. doi:10.1038/533452a
Brian May: The Badgers, the Farmers, and Me’ is a documentary that was aired on BBC2 at 9.00pm on Friday 23 August, and is now available on the BBC iplayer. Filmed over 4 years, the programme charts Brian May’s journey as he explores the ongoing battle against bovine tuberculosis, and the differing views of both farmers and those who oppose badger culling .
The new film covers 12 years of practical research ongoing over the last 12 years. The shocking truth around the monumental failure of Defra to effectively address the problem of bovine TB is highlighted, and the resulting tragic slaughter of both cows and badgers is revealed with horrible clarity.
Animal campaigner Brian May and Anne Brummer, CEO of May’s Save-Me organization, have spent the years since culling was first mooted by David Cameron’s government uncovering the truth about bovine TB. Rather than fighting the farmers, May and Brummer have looked at the problem from the viewpoint of the farmer and the vet , following a case study which has transformed a chronically infected cattle herd into a healthy herd with TB-free status. This was achieved without killing a single badger. The revolutionary methods used are now known as the Gatcombe strategy.
Meanwhile, over the same period, nearly a quarter of a million badgers have been killed on the basis that they spread bTB to cattle. This new documentary shows that the badger cull policy implemented since 2013 has failed farmers completely. Rates of bTB infection and consequent numbers of cattle slaughtered are in some areas no better, and in others worse than ever, following the cull. The work from the case study farm in the documentary clearly shows with that blaming badgers has been a wildly incorrect reading of the facts.
May and Brummer conclude that the very idea that badgers are part of the bTB re-infection process is unsupportable. Government and NFU policy has been based on the work of a small number of scientists who have persisted in claiming disease benefit from statistical models, ignoring the uncertainty around them, and doubling-down when challenged.
This new documentary is the first time that an alternative view about badger culling has been presented in documentary format. Do watch it for a sincere, refreshing and honest take on badger culling. It goes to the heart of the problem, and shows compassion for the farmers, the cattle and badgers. And it provides answers and a way forward. Congratulations to all involved.
Things are starting to become slightly clearer as we near the point of discovery over the future of badger culling in England and beyond. Consultees to the online Defra Consultation questionnaire of 14th March were told this Monday (5th August) that an analysis of Consultation responses will be published in the autumn (Sept-Nov?) giving more time for policy development without badger culling. But there is no reason now to delay clarification on the big 56% lie surrounding the ineffective badger culls.
Notably, the NFU appeared fully taken in by the spin from the Animal and Plant Health Agency paper by Colin Birch and Defra, that badger culling ‘is working’. Birch et al. follows on from a paper published in Veterinary Record in 2022 that showed quite neatly how recorded bovine TB levels (recorded OTF-W incidence) peaked after the introduction of annual tuberculin testing in 2010 and began dropping in the High Risk Area from 2013 in some counties and generally by 2015. And, at a steady rate that did not increase once badger culling started (and that was more widespread from 2018), showing no evidence that badger culling had contributed to a slow decline of around 6% per year.
Steve Barclay, and previous Environment Ministers before him, had made wild claims of a culling benefit of around 50%, based on APHA parroting the claims made since the 1970s that this is the badger contribution to cattle TB. This has always been a poorly evidenced, lame and far-fetched claim, making a mockery of professional epidemiology.
Not to be fooled, Labour are onto the problem and have firmly labelled badger culling as ‘ineffective’ in their manifesto. They have highlighted the need to work with farmers and scientists which is now the helpful – but not very specific – new Defra mantra.
The Birch paper makes it quite clear in two places that the cause of the welcome decline in bTB first identified formally in 2022, cannot be attributed to any particular intervention, be it better testing, different tests and more frequent tests, better biosecurity or badger culling. It is just a crude before-and-after effort with no controls, showing what was already known in a slightly clunky way. This is no help at all, as Professor Macdonald at Oxford pointed out in his November 2023 ‘state of the science’ review. However, the unfortunately misleading abstract for the Birch paper transmutes opinion into ‘fact’, to give the casual reader a misinformed overview of the findings. How very CVO.
So what are we left with as we approach the time of Labour’s big reveal this month? Firstly, an increased interest in badger vaccination with Defra organising a media spree with its dutiful contractors to suggest a direction of travel that Natural England seem to think is appropriate.
Betty Badger (AKA Mary Barton) has stood outside Defra offices in Marsham Street every Thursday for over 7 years now. She has done it in all weathers, sometimes unbearably hot, sometimes soaking wet, sometimes freezing cold.
She is doing it to protest at the ongoing badger cull that has now killed over 230,000 badgers. She is doing it to raise awareness of the issue, and to make sure that this dreadful policy does not become considered as acceptable. Because it’s not. She is doing it to make sure that the Defra employees who go in and out of the building are reminded that their badger cull policy, that they oversee, is causing huge suffering and depletion of native wildlife. She does it because she is so distraught about it, that she can’t NOT do it.
Sometime she gets words of encouragement, sometimes she gets verbal abuse. Occasionally she gets physical abuse. Sometimes passing Defra employees reveal their complete ignorance of the science of bovine TB and badger culling by their comments to Betty. Occasionally a civil servant will approach Betty say “ I can’t talk to you because I would get into trouble, but thank you Betty for doing this and please carry on”
She has secured meetings with each Secretary of State for the Environment during her vigil (except for Therese Coffey), who have for the most part listened politely, but insisted the badger cull is the ‘right thing’ and pressed on with it.
Last year, as the political tide turned, she had a meeting with the Shadow Minister for Defra, Daniel Zeichner. He made positive noises, suggesting Labour would aim to get rid of bovine TB without culling badgers (not shown to work), but using cattle measures (known to work). He advised her that with Labour in government, Betty could have her Thursdays back: she wouldn’t need to stand outside Defra any more.
But here we are……..Betty is still outside Defra after all. Natural England have released information under Freedom of Information saying that up to 28 thousand badgers will be targeted this year. And this is despite the statement in the Labour Manifesto that culling badgers is ‘ineffective’ and will end.
Betty has read the science and thinks badgers have been framed.
In 2019, when Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour party, their manifesto stated clearly that, if elected, badger culling would stop. Labour under the leadership of Keir Starmer had a less clear position on badger culling, until Reform UK split the Conservative vote, and in the recent election manifesto it was said that Labour would “work with farmers and scientists on measures to eradicate Bovine TB, protecting livelihoods, so that we can end the ineffective badger cull”.
How will Labour work with farmers and scientists?
Since the election, Steve Reed, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Daniel Zeichner, the new Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have been busy making their presence felt amongst the farming community. They seem to have been rubbing shoulders every other day with the NFU for the last two weeks, and yesterday (18th July) were at the National Farmers’ Union Summer Reception in Parliament in front of dozens of MPs, where Zeichner said:
“And I know the culling debate is a really, really hard one. Very, very contentious. Huge passion on both sides of the argument. But let me tell you, the Secretary of State has been clear: the current round of licences will be honoured. I absolutely believe we’re only going to eradicate bovine TB by working closely and constructively together to use all the science and everything that we’ve got to beat it. We are going to beat it. I tell you, I’ve already said to the department, that is my top priority. So, you have my assurance.”
So who will be working closely and constructively together? Zeichner is fulfilling his commitment to meet with industry representatives. How about meeting with the scientists? And other stakeholders shut out by Government for a decade or more? He may be talking to the scientists who have spent the last 20 odd years presenting work from their own Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT) as the best evidence of the role of badgers in bovine TB, but they are definitely not talking to published scientists who have found that culling badgers has no role in the management of bovine TB in cattle (Langton et al 2022 and Torgerson et al 2024).
Are Labour taking ‘evidence’ from only one side of the debate and filtered through the lenses of civil servants? The civil servants seem to be doubling down to keep uncertain and flawed science that they have propped up for two decades. Will Labour keep in place the really dreadful Bovine TB Partnership that is made up largely of those with the commercial interests of farming and cattle vets, to advise on badger culling. Mostly not scientists. With a new scientific paper out this week (here) that shows that there were no measurable effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle in the RBCT, will there be better thinking from Labour? Will they drop the unscientific inference (from Birch et al.) regarding the 56% reduction in breakdowns (2013-2020) being due to badger culling rather than from cattle testing? (See what Professor David MacDonald says about this here). If they will not stop culling now, with yet more science suggesting badger culling is ineffective, then when will they, and can the law let them?
Ineffective badger cull?
It was heartening to see in Labour’s manifesto that they agree that the badger cull is ineffective. It would have been good to see a little more detail on why this is their view. We would like to hear more on this. But surely, if culling is ineffective, it is illegal under Section 10 of the Protection of Badger Act 1992? Culling badgers would only be permitted under licence if it could prevent the spread of disease – which it cannot if it is ineffective? So is Labour talking in riddles, or poised to backtrack and go back on its first manifesto pledge? We are about to find out.
We can end the ineffective badger cull?
‘We can end’ the ineffective badger culls’ they say, but when? Millions of people voted Labour because they hoped and believed that Labour would end the culls on coming into power. Why wouldn’t they, they are ineffective? Or do they believe they are effective, as Defra Vet Christine Middlemiss has been telling them, with the fake ‘56%’ nonsense that is now under legal challenge. Newly published science shows that there can be no measurable benefit from continuing culling. They cannot be continuing them because of contractual obligation to culling companies, because the Derbyshire cull that was cancelled in 2019 was legally challenged by the NFU, but the judge found that the government had a legal entitlement to make a political decision about culling. So they could make a political decision, and a scientific one, to stop all culling straight away if they wanted to. So why don’t they? This is now the big question that they need to answer next week before they pack up from Parliament for the summer.
This website has been reporting on the legal challenges to the badger culling policy and licences, and the science that has supposedly supported it since 2019. Over that time, there have been many jaw-dropping moments; government interference in peer-reviewed science, government scientists getting their data wrong in published letters, Natural England claiming that culling has no effect on ecosystems and then desperately covering their tracks in the courts. The list goes on, and the story that has unfolded remains truly shocking.
Professor Paul Torgerson, Chair, Veterinary Epidemiology, University of Zurich
But an even more dramatic sequel to this long-running saga is the new scientific paper published this week in Scientific Reports by Professor Paul Torgerson and colleagues including Badger Crowd’s Tom Langton. We will be posting a video presentation that will put this new work into context and demonstrate the massive impact that it should now have on Government bovine TB policy.
Why is this new study so important?
Because the government badger cull policy rests all but entirely on the conclusions from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). It is the science that DEFRA has used in court to defend their decisions to experiment with culling. The study is the original peer-reviewed science that claims badger culling can reduce bTB in cattle; many subsequent studies are derivative from it, use the same flawed methodology, or suffer heavily from confirmation bias. I.e. they are subjective opinion that fails to prove that culling badgers causes disease reduction. However, benefits are claimed from culling when any benefits are, in reality likely from cattle measures. This is because such benefits are “predicted” from the results of the RBCT.
What does the new study say?
The new study re-examines data from the RBCT experiment using a range of statistical models. It concludes that most standard analytical options did not show any evidence to support an effect of badger culling on bovine TB in cattle. The statistical model selected for use in the original study in 2006 was one of the few models that did show an effect from badger culling. However, various criteria suggest that the original model was not an optimal model compared to other analytical options then available. The most likely explanation for the difference in result from the different analyses is that the RBCT proactive cull analysis ‘overfitted’ the data and used a non-standard method to control for disease exposure. The result is that the original model had a poor predictive value, i.e. it was not useful in predicting the results of badger culling. The more appropriate models in the latest study strongly suggest that badger culling does not bring about the disease reduction reported.
How might the RBCT scientists defend their decisions?
The RBCT was a pre-planned analysis i.e. data was analysed in the way they said it would be before they started the trial, so it can’t be questioned. This is not the case. There was a loosely described plan to compare rates of disease between culled and unculled areas. Their published analysis in fact compared counts of disease between culled and unculled areas. Would the conclusion of the RBCT analysis have been different if incidence rates had been analysed correctly? Yes it would. Even if the data had been analysed according to any ‘pre-plan’, this would not preclude subsequent re-analysis using correct and more appropriate methods, except you might not do it if you believed rates had been used as was suggested in the paper.
There is nothing wrong with using the model to calculate the number of herds (exposure). There may be circumstances in which a model may be sensibly used to calculate exposure. However, the original model used suggests that bTB herd incidents (a standard measure of new disease) is independent of the number of herds in a study area. That is, if the number of herds in an area is doubled, the incidence does not change. This is not credible. Not least because the RBCT report (Table 5.4) showed that breakdowns doubled in cull and control areas over the period of study.
You are just model dredging; i.e. you are just picking out the model that says what you want. The new study re-examined RBCT data using a range of statistical models (22 in total). Most of these show no evidence to support an effect of badger culling on bTB in cattle. The statistical model chosen by the RBCT study was one of the few models that did show an effect, but when tested in an accredited way, it is not an optimal model. The new paper is not guilty of “model dredging”, it is the result of an attempt to find a robust analytical method that could support the claims of the RBCT
Why has this not been picked up before?
It does seem remarkable that the original RBCT a) got through peer review, and b) has not been challenged since. One reason might be the rather casual use of the words ‘rate’ and ‘count’ in the original paper, which implies that rate has been used in the model, whereas in fact an epidemiologically non-standard method was used to calculate a rate. Supplementary information in the original paper showed standard calculated ‘rates’ and the assumption could have been made that these were what was used in the model. They were not.
Interestingly, in the journal Biostatistics in 2010, two authors of the 2006 paper discussed approaches to using a range of statistical methods on a data set to compare their performance, and the choosing of a planned statistical approach that best complimented the subject matter. They proposed that selection of a specific statistical approach may involve ’subtle considerations about the interplay between subject-matter and statistical aspects and the detailed nature of the data and its compilation.’ And with respect to the peer-review of results, they contend quite boldly: ‘the suggestion of requiring independent replication of specific statistical analyses as a general check before publication seems not merely unnecessary but a misuse of relatively scarce expertise.’
This may go some way towards understanding how problems with the original analysis were not picked up for such a long time. And it goes some way to explaining why there is such a reproducibility crisis in science.
The ‘Comment’ submission to the Royal Society Open Science is an extensive response to the two new Mills et al. (2024) papers which reproduced much of Torgerson et al.’s models, whilst re-interpreting the results.
