This is Why We Didn’t Want NBAF in Mid-Missouri

The Brits have another confirmed foot-and-mouth outbreak:

Cattle at a farm in Surrey have been found to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease.

Some 60 animals on the farm near Guildford have tested positive for the disease which wreaked havoc in 2001.

A 3km protection zone has been put in place around the premises and a UK ban imposed on movement of all livestock.
[…]
In accordance with legislation, all cattle on the Surrey premises will be culled, said a government spokesman.
[…]
As well as the 3km protection zone, there is also a 10km surveillance zone where nearby animals are monitored.

The outbreak in 2001 led to between 6.5 million and 10 million animals being destroyed and cost as much as £8.5bn (about $17.4 billion). Many farms and other rural businesses were ruined.


One in 6 U.S. jobs are tied to agriculture. We are currently the only nation in the world that certifies its beef, pork, and lamb to be FMD-free, and for that reason we charge a premium on the world market.

Yes, NBAF would have brought a $500 million construction project and a couple hundred good biotech jobs to mid-Missouri. But it will only take one leak to make it a losing proposition forever.

There is a reason that the only U.S. lab that works with FMD is located offshore, away from livestock. Putting a new one in Missouri would have been reckless.

Manhattan, Kansas is one of the five remaining potential sites. Are there any cows or pigs in Kansas? Or deer?

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


UA-2941127-3