Home - Mark Purdey - Tributes - Mark Purdey's Book ' Animal Pharm'  - Articles -  Science - Research Fund -  News - Politics
Site Map  -  FAQ's -  Contacts -  Search -  Links

My rebuttal of Gabriel Horne Report

Solicitor's letter to DEFRA

Mark Purdey's E-mail to DEFRA

Defra to Solicitors -10.07.02

Defra's letter to Solicitors - 25.07.02

Defra's letter to Solicitor's - 20.08.02

Political Arena 

Solicitor's letter

The draft of the letter Mark Purdey has found it necessary to instruct his solicitors send to DEFRA

One New Change - London EC4M 1QQ

Our Ref: DLM/RT/LT:576593.1 

Ruth Thompson

Department of Food and Rural Affairs

Nobel House, 17, Smith Square, London SW13JR

DRAFT

Dear Madam,

Mark Purdey

We act for Mark Purdey. As you know, Mr Purdey has serious concerns about the report on the origins of BSE (the "Report") produced by the committee chaired by Gabriel Horn (the "Committee") and its subsequent use by DEFRA. On its face the report appears to undermine the scientific integrity of Mr Purdey's work.Publication of the report and DEFRA's subsequent use of it, have therefore damaged Mr Purdey's reputation and affected his ability to secure further funding for his work.

However we understand that the dismissal of our client's work was based on false premises. First the report misrepresents the nature of our client's work. Our client's view is that BSE in cattle may have been caused by a combination of factors. However, the report suggests that our client's view is that each factor may be an independent and free standing cause. Secondly the committee's conclusions were based on assumptions of fact that are demonstrably wrong.

For example the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from paragraph 4.8.3.1.(a) is that either no cows or a negligible number of cows born after 1982 were treated with Phosmet. That is not correct. We understand that treatment fo warble fly with Phosmet was widespread after 1982. As recently as 1995, MAFF was actively encouraging "all farmers in Great Britain" to " seriously consider treating their cattle", as set out in the enclosed MAFF leaflet. This also referred to the statutory duty on casttle importers to treat cattle within 24 hours of arrival in Great Britain. Further, as you know, Mr Purdey himself had to obtain a court injunction against MAFF in 1985 in order to prevent his herd being compulsorily treated. This is hardly consistent with a negligible of treatment after 1982.

In addition paragraph 4..8.3.1.(b) of the Report states that Jersey officially treated cattle for warbles. This statement, based on evidence provided to the committee by NOAH, is also wrong, as pointed out in the enclosed copies of letters written by Noel Martin, the Jersey Government's chief veterinary officer, to the press in response to NOAH's claim. These confirm that Jersey never officially treated cattle for warble fly.

The committee's rejection of Mr Purdey's work was in large part based on these incorrect statements. He therefore requires DEFRA to correct the misleading statements about his work in the report. Any correction must include, as a minimum, an acknowledgement that our client's hypothesis is that a BSE is caused by a combination of factors, not any single cause, and correction of the misstatements referred to above.

We hope that it will be possible to agree a statement with a view to restoring Mr Purdey's reputation without the need to take this matter to the courts. However, our client will of course take legal action to protect his position if necessary. In the meantime, he reserves all of his rights.

Yours faithfully 

Allen and Overy

Back to the top

Go back

Design by Equofax
Last updated 09-Feb-2007