Foot and mouth vaccine. (Photo: Department of Agriculture)
TLU SA warns that although the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) confirmed this week that 20,000 doses of a locally produced foot-and-mouth vaccine were made available “in support of national vaccination campaigns”, there remain serious questions about the practical implementation and effectiveness of the current strategy.
John Steenhuisen, the minister of agriculture, this week welcomed ARC’s step and indicated that the restoration of production capacity is currently underway. According to Steenhuisen, an additional investment has already been made to expand the existing capacity over the medium term.
Maroela Media previously reported that the target to produce 20,000 doses by the end of March was previously set by the ARC during the making available of a first group of 12,900 doses on 6 February this year. This forms part of a strategy to increase domestic manufacturing capacity in order to meet national demand.
Henry Geldenhuys, president of TLU SA, says the agricultural organisation’s involvement and observations during a visit on 6 February this year, it was clearly indicated that a trivalent vaccine – which includes the SAT 1, SAT 2 and SAT 3 strains – would be developed and made available.
“It was further confirmed that production would start from March, with a target of 20,000 doses per week. However, the reality currently looks completely different. Instead of a trivalent vaccine being rolled out, it appears that only vaccines for one strain are currently being produced and distributed.”
(Archive photo: frontiersin.org)
Geldenhuys says TLU SA is also putting the regulatory aspect of the vaccine under serious scrutiny.
“The vaccine that was viewed at the ARC’s facility in Onderstepoort on 6 February was presented as a registered trivalent vaccine for three strains (SAT 1, SAT 2 and SAT 3). In reality, however, this composition comprises five components, namely strain 1 and its mutation, strain 2 and its mutation, as well as strain 3.”
According to scientists, such a vaccine cannot be unilaterally broken down to manufacture and distribute only one strain separately, unless specific approval has been obtained from the registrar, or unless that single-strain vaccine itself is also separately registered.
Geldenhuys says the question that must be asked is whether approval has indeed been obtained to produce these five components, which together form one vaccine, individually.
“If not, it means that a vaccine is now being manufactured outside of its registered composition. You can’t just take one part of a combined vaccine and use it on its own and think it meets the same standards.”
He emphasizes that it is simply irresponsible to roll out vaccines that deal with only one strain, while it is noted that all three strains occur in South Africa.
Geldenhuys also says that there is no guarantee for a farmer that the strain he is vaccinating for is the one that occurs in his area.
Photo for illustration: (Elisma van der Watt/Maroela Media)
“Without proper testing and differentiation of strains, this approach exposes growers to unnecessary risk.”
TLU SA especially questions the deviation from the original plan as communicated in February, and makes it clear that the current approach is not in line with responsible disease control.
The organization emphasizes that blood tests and proper identification of the dominant strain in an area should be an essential starting point before vaccines are administered.
Geldenhuys also expressed his concern about the pace at which decisions are made and implemented.
“It has already been more than two months since the first applications in terms of section 10 were submitted to Steenhuisen, and still there is no final clarity. This delay, together with the lack of alignment with section 9 regarding movement control, leads to further uncertainty and economic damage for producers.”
He says that from the beginning there was an emphasis on speed and urgency, but no actual progress is seen.
“Precious time is lost while farmers pay the price,” says Geldenhuys.
Archive photo (Photo: Mariska Nanni/Maroela Media)
TLU SA further points out that the current production capacity, namely approximately 20 000 doses per week of only one strain, is merely a drop in the bucket given the extent of the BKS challenge in South Africa.
“This pace and approach is not going to get us where we need to be in time.”
He is of the opinion that it would make much more sense to outsource this manufacturing to international laboratories that have the necessary capacity and expertise to make sufficient, effective vaccines available within a short period of time.
“At this stage, we are plodding along with an approach that does not keep up with the urgency of the situation. If this route had already been followed in early February, South Africa would have had sufficient, effective vaccines by this time.”
TLU SA makes an urgent appeal that all role players are given the opportunity to provide input before any regulations, including those regarding section 10, are promulgated.
Geldenhuys says it is essential that a collaborative, practical and expertise-driven approach is followed to effectively manage the BKS crisis.
“The question the department must ask itself is simple: why do we want to control this process alone if we do not have the capacity or expertise? It is time to make the right decisions in the interest of the agricultural industry and the country’s economy,” says Geldenhuys.