taz.de
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in Germany: A Consequence of Policy Choices
Germany faces a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak after 35 years, linked to the cessation of mandatory vaccination in the 1990s due to US trade policies, highlighting risks associated with prioritizing economic interests over preventative measures, as detailed in the new "Critical Agriculture Report".
- What are the immediate consequences of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Germany, considering its impact on animal health, trade, and agricultural practices?
- The Critical Agriculture Report", presented at the Green Week in Berlin, highlights the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Germany after a 35-year absence. Veterinarian Anita Idel attributes this to the cessation of mandatory FMD vaccination in the 1990s, driven by US interests in international trade of meat from unvaccinated animals, increasing risks. The exact source of the current outbreak remains unknown.
- How did the discontinuation of mandatory foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in the 1990s contribute to the current outbreak in Germany, and what role did international trade policies play?
- The report connects the FMD outbreak to broader issues in agricultural policy and research. The absence of mandatory vaccination, influenced by economic and political factors, is presented as a key risk factor. The report also highlights the low funding allocated to agroecological research in Germany (2 percent) and Europe, hindering sustainable agricultural practices.
- What long-term changes in agricultural policies, research funding, and farming practices are necessary to prevent future outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases in Germany and beyond?
- The FMD outbreak underscores the need for a paradigm shift in livestock farming and agricultural policy. The report advocates for a preventative approach, considering breeding goals, husbandry, and trade conditions, regardless of vaccination status. Increased investment in agroecological research is crucial for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately focus on the Kritische Agrarbericht and its findings, framing the foot-and-mouth outbreak primarily through the lens of this report and the author's perspective. This framing establishes a critical tone towards conventional agricultural practices from the outset. Subheadings and emphasis on Idel's warnings further reinforce this perspective, giving significant weight to the report's conclusions without presenting counterarguments or alternative interpretations. The article also highlights the low percentage of research funding allocated to ecological methods, making it seem like the main reason for the problems discussed in the report.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral but leans towards critical assessment of conventional farming practices. Words and phrases such as "Versäumnisse," "Risiken," "Folgeschäden," and "Illusion der Seuchenfreiheit" carry negative connotations and contribute to a critical tone. While this is appropriate given the report's content, it's crucial to note this potential influence on the reader's perception. The article also uses phrases like "politische und wirtschaftliche Interessen" which implicitly suggests that these were significant contributors to the problem without directly attributing blame. More neutral phrasing might be "political and economic factors", avoiding implications of intentional wrongdoing.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspective of Anita Idel and the Kritische Agrarbericht, potentially omitting other expert opinions or government perspectives on the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak and its handling. While acknowledging the surprising nature of the outbreak, it doesn't delve into alternative explanations or investigations beyond Idel's assertions. The limited discussion of government responses and other scientific viewpoints could be considered a bias by omission. The low percentage of funding for agroecological research is mentioned, but lacks specifics regarding the total amount of funding and its allocation across different areas, leaving the reader with an incomplete picture.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a dichotomy between conventional and ecological/sustainable agriculture, implying a simple eitheor choice. It highlights the shortcomings of the conventional approach without fully exploring the complexities and potential benefits of both systems or offering a nuanced perspective that considers potential trade-offs or integration strategies.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Germany, highlighting the negative impact on animal health and the potential risks to human health. The discussion of FMD, African swine fever, and avian influenza, and their connection to political and economic interests, directly relates to the SDG target of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. The lack of sufficient investment in agroecological research further hinders progress towards this goal by limiting advancements in disease prevention and control.