Search Results

1-20 of 34 results for subject:Testing

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of wild bird and mammal surveillance for highly pathogenic avian influenza on UK coastlines; and whether she plans to increase funding for carcass testing in 2025–26.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 October 2025

Reference

76973

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what progress her Department has made in identifying a BSE test capable of supporting British beef producers who plan to export to (a) Europe and (b) third countries. - Inc figure. (Holding answer 25 February 2005).

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

1 March 2005

Reference

218475; 431 c1030W;431 c1026W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether (a) Ministers and (b) officials in the (i) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (ii) her Department had been informed of the existence of the (A) James Dring Report, (B) Northumberland Trading Standards video and report,...

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

30 November 2004

For answer on

19 January 2005

Answered on

19 January 2005

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether (a) Ministers and (b) officials in the (i) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (ii) her Department had been informed of the existence of the (A) James Dring Report, (B) Northumberland Trading Standards video and report, (C) scientific test samples sent to Pirbright and (D) results of those test samples, in respect of the Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the-Wall, foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001, (1) prior to and (2) during the period of the Dr. Iain Anderson FMD Inquiry in 2001-02; [202036] (2) whether the (a) James Dring Report, (b) Northumberland Trading Standards video and report, (c) scientific test samples sent to Pirbright and (d) results of those test samples in respect of the Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the-Wall, foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 were (i) supplied to the Chairman of the Lessons to be Learned Inquiry in 2001 and (ii) the subject of minuted informal meetings in (A) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (B) her Department in (1) 2001 and (2) 2002; [202037] (3) what assessment was made of the suitability of the (a) James Dring Report, (b) Northumberland Trading Standards video and report, (c) scientific test samples sent to Pirbright and (d) results of those test samples in respect of the Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the-Wall, foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001, to be forwarded to Dr Iain Anderson for his inquiry in 2001-02. [202038] Mr. Bradshaw: Ministers were briefed about and had access to Mr. Dring's personal statement in the week beginning 8 March 2004. Officials knew about Mr. Dring's statement prior to and during the period of the FMD 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry, chaired by Dr. Iain Anderson Mr. Dring's personal statement was not submitted to the Lessons to be Learned Inquiry, as there was concern that the contents would have been prejudicial to Mr. Waugh's trial at which Mr. Dring was a witness of fact, rather than an expert witness, had the statement received publicity beforehand. The contemporaneous notes of Mr. Dring's visits to Burnside were given to Dr. Anderson. Mr. Dring also contributed fully to the investigations on the origins of the foot-and mouth (FMD) outbreak 2001, submitted by the then Chief Veterinary Officer to the Inquiry. This Origins of FMD report was based on wide-ranging evidence and rigorous investigation and was published by Dr. Anderson. Defra has no record of minutes of informal meetings being made or submitted to the inquiry. Ministers and Dr. Anderson have said it was regrettable that the Mr. Dring's statement was not sent to the inquiry. However, Dr. Anderson has stated that had he seen Mr. Dring's statement at that time it would not have changed any conclusions or recommendations of his inquiry. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Dring's visit to Burnside Farm were discussed with the Lessons Learned Inquiry Team on 4 March 2002; a note of the meeting was also published by Dr. Anderson. Defra has known about the video since it was first being made in so far as a Veterinary Officer was present on Burnside Farm on 24 February 2001, when filming took place. We have no record of Ministers being expressly informed of the existence of the video until recently. The Under-Secretary of State (Lords) became aware of the video when extracts were shown in the television news media at the time of Robert Waugh's trial in May 2002. It was brought to Ministers' attention again as a result of the media and parliamentary interest in the video that was generated by the Farmers Weekly in October this year. I am not aware of any associated report written by Northumberland county council. The report of the FMD 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry, chaired by Dr. Iain Anderson, was published on 22 July 2002. Defra has no record of being sent a copy of the video by Northumberland county council before February 2003. Northumberland county council did not release any copies of the video before the trial of Mr. Waugh in May 2002, after Dr. Anderson had stopped receiving evidence for his Lessons to be Learned Inquiry. Officials were aware made aware of the scientific tests results on the samples taken at Burnside Farm, as soon they were available, resulting in Defra confirming disease on Burnside farm on 23 February. Details of the samples and the results of the tests are set out in the Origins of FMD report submitted to the Anderson Inquiry. As set out in the Origins of FMD report, samples were taken at Burnside Farm on 22 February, which included epithelium samples from two pigs and 20 blood samples taken from other pigs on the premises. On 24 February further sampling was carried out when FMD experts from the Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright and an epidemiological team from Defra visited the farm. 88 per cent. of the 241 pigs blood sampled on that day were seropositive for FMD Type O antibodies. I would also refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 13 December about the video of Burnside Farm.

Date

19 January 2005

Reference

429 c935-8W;429 c939-42W; 202036;202037;202038

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many comparative intra-dermal TB tests were carried out on (a) farmed and (b) park deer herds under the Deer Health Scheme in the last five years.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 November 2004

Reference

426 c1240W;426 c1244W; 197319

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what response her Department made to the proposal of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB to undertake a field trial of the Bovigam gamma interferon test.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

25 May 2004

Reference

172567; 421 c1486W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what predictive modelling has been applied to the possible application of the Bovigam gamma interferon test to control bovine TB under different bovine TB scenarios in the UK, using Bovigam's known levels of specificity and sensitivity.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

6 May 2004

For answer on

25 May 2004

Answered on

25 May 2004

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what predictive modelling has been applied to the possible application of the Bovigam gamma interferon test to control bovine TB under different bovine TB scenarios in the UK, using Bovigam's known levels of specificity and sensitivity. [172564] Mr. Bradshaw: Since 1997, Defra has commissioned two studies to evaluate the costs and benefits of using the Bovigam gamma interferon test to control bovine TB under different bovine TB scenarios in Great Britain. In carrying out the two economic assessments, predictive modelling was used to determine the likely outcomes under different bovine TB scenarios. The models used values for the specificity and sensitivity of the gamma interferon test published in the scientific literature from overseas field trials. Project SE3018 investigated whether it would be cost- effective to use the gamma interferon test in herds with multiple tuberculin reactor animals. As the gamma interferon test is considered more sensitive than the skin test, its use in infected herds could improve the detection of tuberculous cattle. This would hasten the elimination of infection from herds and reduce the spread of infection among herds. However, this benefit has to be weighed against the extra cost that would result from the unnecessary slaughter of more non-tuberculous cattle due to the lower specificity of the gamma interferon test. Project TD0604 investigated whether it would be cost-effective to use the gamma interferon test to resolve the tuberculosis status of herds in which only inconclusive reactor animals are detected at a routine herd test. Final reports on these projects were submitted to Defra in April 2002 and November 1998, respectively.

Date

25 May 2004

Reference

172564; 421 c1485W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of combinations of specificity and sensitivity applied in countries which have a bovine TB problem, in their use of the Bovigam gamma interferon test. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172565; 421 c1106-7W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many studies the Government has funded in the last 15 years into the specificity and sensitivity of the Bovigam gamma interferon test; which research establishments conducted each study; what the conclusions of each study were, with reference...

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172556; 421 c1106W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what advice the Central Scientific Laboratory has provided to her Department on the (a) specificity and (b) sensitivity of the Bovigam gamma interferon test; and what advice it has provided on the applicability of the test as a...

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

421 c1107W; 172999;172555

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has undertaken a cost and benefit analysis of the use of the Bovigam gamma interferon test.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172568; 421 c1107W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what research she has evaluated on the specificity and sensitivity of the Bovigam gamma interferon test; and what conclusions she has drawn.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

6 May 2004

For answer on

20 May 2004

Answered on

20 May 2004

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated on the specificity and sensitivity of the Bovigam gamma interferon test; and what conclusions she has drawn. [172550] Mr. Bradshaw: The Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) has reviewed 13 papers reporting gamma- interferon (g-IFN) field trials in Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Brazil, Italy, Spain and USA. Eight papers gave 20 estimates of sensitivity (80 per cent. were in the range 71-94 per cent.) and 8 papers gave 22 estimates of specificity (80 per cent. were in the range 89-99 per cent.). These estimates for sensitivity are similar to those for the skin test as practiced in the UK, but the estimates for specificity are lower. If the g-IFN test were used at the same time or shortly after the skin test and animals positive to either test were removed, the combined tests would have a greater sensitivity than the skin test alone. If used with the defined, more specific, antigens developed by VLA, the gamma interferon test can in certain circumstances identify uninfected animals that are positive to the skin test. The g-IFN assay is widely considered to be at least as sensitive as the skin tests and, in addition, will detect a proportion of infected cattle that fail to react to the skin tests. This is thought to be because the g-IFN test detects infection at an earlier stage that the skin test does, although there is also evidence that the two tests detect slightly different populations of tuberculous cattle. However, the g-IFN test is hardly ever used for mass TB screening on its own. This is because the test is relatively expensive, it does not detect all skin test-positive infected animals, it tends to be less specific than the SICCT (the single intradermal comparative cervical test, which is the version of the skin test used in the UK and Ireland) and, like the SICCT, it is unlikely to detect infected animals that are negative to the tuberculin test due to a depressed immune response to tuberculin (this can occur in cattle with advanced TB). The need to process samples within 24-30 hours of collection also poses some logistical problems for mass screening. In contrast, it has been postulated that the use of the g-IFN test in tandem with the skin test could allow the removal of more (but not necessarily all) infected cattle from particular breakdown herds than the skin test alone. If this is correct, use of the two tests in quick succession should speed up the elimination of infection from infected herds. Under this premise, the European Commission approved the g-IFN test in 2002 for use as an ancillary test in animals that fail to respond to the skin test and it now complements the skin tests in cattle herds with intractable, confirmed infection in many EU member states. It is worth noting that most of these member states use a version of the skin test different to that used in the UK and Ireland.

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172550; 421 c1104W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what level of specificity and sensitivity she has concluded might be applied to control bovine TB in cattle herds which (a) are subject to repeated and persistent bovine TB breakdowns, (b) are subject to a first TB breakdown...

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172551; 421 c1104-5W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the effect of repeated intradermal skin tests on the ability of the test to detect bovine TB infection in individual cattle.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

6 May 2004

For answer on

20 May 2004

Answered on

20 May 2004

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of repeated intradermal skin tests on the ability of the test to detect bovine TB infection in individual cattle. [172530] Mr. Bradshaw: There is often a trade-off between test sensitivity and specificity. The skin test used in GB has been fine tuned to optimise specificity (i.e. keep false positives to a minimum) while retaining a good sensitivity (i.e. probability of identifying infected herds). However, because of the dynamics of Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis--the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) transmission and the time it takes to mount a detectable immune response to the intradermal injection of tuberculin, the skin test cannot be relied upon to detect every animal infected with M. bovis at the time of the disclosing test. This phenomenon is not unique to the tuberculin test and, in fact, this is quite normal for any immunological test. For these reasons, it is well accepted that the tuberculin tests are more suited to the detection of infected herds rather than the detection of infected individual cattle, i.e. a small proportion of infected animals in reactor herds may escape detection when the herd is first tested (false negatives). In order to increase the sensitivity of the skin test and detect any animals in the early stages of infection, reactor herds are re-tested at 60 day intervals until no further reactor animals are found and restrictions can be lifted. Reactor herds are then re-tested 6 and 18 months after the lifting of restrictions. Additionally, if infection has been confirmed in the herd by post mortem examination or culture, a more severe interpretation of test readings is applied. This further enhances the ability of the test to detect any residual infection after the initial screening. In other words, the imperfect sensitivity of the skin test is compensated for by the application of short-interval testing and severe interpretation. Defra has also sponsored experimental work at the Institute of Animal Health (Compton), to look into the effects of repeat skin testing. The main finding of this experiment was that repeat testing at 56-day intervals before experimental infection of calves with M. bovis had no effect on the animals' ability to respond to an intradermal test carried out seven weeks post-infection. Therefore, no matter how often an animal is skin tested before it contracts TB, the sensitivity of the skin test after infection will not be compromised.

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172530; 421 c1103-4W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the maximum (a) specificity and (b) sensitivity achieved by the Bovigam gammas interferon test in experiments conducted in the UK is; and under what conditions these results were achieved.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172553; 421 c1105W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment her Department has made of the predictive models used in other countries to assess the feasibility of controlling bovine TB using the Bovigam gamma interferon test.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 2004

Reference

172552; 421 c1105W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department uses the Bovigam gamma interferon test in field trials.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 May 2004

Reference

172529; 421 c973W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what efforts her Department has made to ensure that EU accession states have the required technical capacity and advice to ensure their compliance with (a) testing, (b) labelling and (c) traceability of GM crops and foods under EU...

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

19 April 2004

For answer on

28 April 2004

Answered on

28 April 2004

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what efforts her Department has made to ensure that EU accession states have the required technical capacity and advice to ensure their compliance with (a) testing, (b) labelling and (c) traceability of GM crops and foods under EU regulations; [167418] (2) what discussions she has had with (a) the EC and (b) her counterparts in the 10 EU accession states to seek a timetable for the compliance of the accession states with regulations (EC) 1829/2003 and (EC) 1830/ 2003 on the labelling and traceability of genetically modified crops; [167419] (3) what efforts her Department is making to ensure that (a) EU member states and (b) EU accession states comply with EU rules on genetically modified crops, including regulations (i) (EC) No.1829/2003 and (ii) (EC) No.1830/2003 under directive 2001/18/EC on traceability and labelling. [167420] Mr. Morley: Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is part of the aquis communautaire for the new member states. New Regulations on traceability and labelling of GMOs (Regulation (EC) 1830/2003) and GM food and feed (Regulation (EC) 1829/2003) are not formally included in the "aquis communautaire" for accession states as negotiations were closed in December 2002. However, the regulations will apply in new member states from 1 May 2004, and new member states will be required to have appropriate legislative frameworks in place. The new Regulations took effect in existing member states from 18 April 2004. All these Regulations require member states to introduce a proportionate and effective hierarchy of offences and penalties related to the potential seriousness of the failure to comply with the various EU requirements. The Commission is required to produce Community- wide guidance in relation to the new Regulations, including guidance on sampling and testing, to ensure a co-ordinated approach between member states. Work on this is still under way. The Secretary of State has not explicitly discussed the application of these Regulations with current or accession member states. However, officials from my Department and the Food Standards Agency continue to liaise with their counterparts in other member states through Regulatory and Standing Committees and informal contacts.

Date

28 April 2004

Reference

420 c1013-4W; 167418;167419;167420

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what measures her Department has put in place to contain the recent outbreak of brucellosis in Cornwall. (Holding answer 23 March 2004).

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

26 March 2004

Reference

419 c1089-90W;419 c1092W; 163150

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what progress her Department has made in containing the recent outbreak of ring rot. - Inc fact that a new publicity leaflet on ring rot has been prepared and will be sent to all potato growers shortly.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

8 December 2003

Reference

415 c232W; 140839

House

House of Commons

Dept of Health

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much his Department spent on (a) polymerase chain reaction and (b) other DNA-identification tests in each of the last 10 years; what steps the Food Standards Agency is taking to improve the polymerase chain reaction testing regime. - Inc table.

Asked by

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department of Health

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

29 May 2003

For answer on

10 June 2003

Answered on

10 June 2003

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much his Department spent on (a) polymerase chain reaction and (b) other DNA- identification tests in each of the last 10 years; [116853] (2) what steps the Food Standards Agency is taking to improve the polymerase chain reaction testing regime. [116854] Ms Blears: The Department did not fund development of any such tests until the Food Standards Agency (FSA) was established in April 2000. Since then an estimated total of £1.5 million has been spent on methods using DMA techniques to identify the presence of specific ingredients in foodstuffs. A breakdown of the amount spent per year is shown in the table. The projects have been looking at use of DNA methods to check the labelling of a wide range of foods, especially meat and fish products. All but one of these methods use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based techniques. The FSA is currently funding ten research projects aimed at improving PCR methodology for use in authenticity surveys and enforcement of labelling legislation. These tests are aimed at developing methods for identifying ingredients of a wide range of products, including vegetarian foods, and identifying varieties, for example of potatoes and rice. _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Completed in Year Range of foodstuffs included No. of projects Total cost (£s) 2000 Food mixtures, meat. 3 75,021 2001 Meat, wine, seafood, fish, 6 423,098 olive oil, chicken. 2002 Potatoes, rice, meat, olive and 5 343,549 hazelnut oil. 2003 White fish, jams and yoghurts, 10 725,286 (estimated) vegetarian foods, meat, rice, potato, chicken breasts. _________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Date

10 June 2003

Reference

406 c842W;406 c843-4W; 116853;116854

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher