(A) the British mad cow disease
125 October, 1986, the first cow suffering from mad cow disease was found in a beautiful town in the southeast of England-Afushide town. This is a black-and-white cow, which has an early onset. It is sleepy and unstable, and its gait is Liang Qiang. Being late, I can't afford to lie on the ground foaming at the mouth. Veterinary authorities confirmed that this cow suffering from mad cow disease is. In the same year, four cases of mad cow disease were found in the first test by the British National Veterinary Center. 1 1 month 1987, 95 cases were found in 80 farms in Britain. Up to 1988, 25 12 cases were found. 1989 A total of 8443 cases of mad cow disease were registered. By the end of the year, 1990 and 17323 cases of mad cow disease had been spread. 1992 reached the highest value of 44,544 cases.
(B) the outbreak of the mad cow disease crisis
Although the crisis has slowed down since 1992 in terms of the number of cases, after 1990 found cases of mad cow disease in cats and pigs, people began to worry that mad cow disease would be transmitted to humans. By 1996, unfortunately, it was finally confirmed. On March 20th, the British government announced that 10' s new patients were related to mad cow disease Coyote's disease, which was like stirring up a thousand waves, causing a "cow color change" in Britain and even Europe. In just a few months, the beef sales of EU countries dropped by 70%, and the member countries were mutually affected by "beef". 1996 Up to May 6, 2002, 89 people have been confirmed to have died of CJD in Britain. Britain, France, Germany and other countries have expressed their dissatisfaction with the incompetence of crisis management through public demonstrations and protests. The long-hidden crisis of mad cow disease suddenly surfaced, escalating from an economic crisis in agriculture and animal husbandry to a social and political crisis.
On March 27th, 1996, Council of Europe banned the export of British beef and related products. 1On May 24, 1996, Britain appealed to the European Court of Justice to restore the export ban. Although it was rejected, its government approved negotiations with its allies to lift the ban. On June 26th, the governments of EU member states will sign the Florence Framework Agreement, and on the premise that Britain meets the following requirements, they will quietly admit the restrictions on British beef imports: slaughtering animals that have been out of the risk of infection; To improve the animal identification and tracking system in Britain, laws will be promulgated to prohibit the use of mammalian meat and bones as animal feed and slaughter 30 cows; Effectively prevent harmful substances remaining after slaughtering animal carcasses.
In addition to the export ban to prevent the spread of the BSE crisis, the EU has also taken other preventive measures, including: in April 1, 1997, the implementation of "strict treatment standards" for the disposal of animal waste, and in May 1, 1998, the implementation of "initiative" to control and eradicate BSE. These measures have made the EU consumers' confidence in beef safety rise, but the crisis that broke out in Germany, France and other countries in 2000 caused a new round of consumer confidence to drop again. This made the EU take urgent measures to try to restore market confidence and beef consumption. Despite the tight measures, the mad cow disease crisis broke out throughout the European Union, and so far only three countries have not found mad cow disease.
At the beginning of February, 2000, the meeting of EU agriculture ministers agreed that the pressure of mad cow disease crisis on EU economy and society had reached a "state of emergency". In 2006 10, beef suspected of being contaminated by mad cow disease virus was found in many supermarkets in France, causing widespread panic. The mad cow disease crisis has sharply reduced the sales of French beef, hit the export, and caused heavy economic losses to French farmers and herdsmen. In this crisis, the government has suffered tremendous social pressure from all sides: on the one hand, it must take strict measures to control the spread of mad cow disease for the benefit of consumers, on the other hand, it must try its best to help cattle farmers tide over the crisis. Shortly thereafter, cases of mad cow disease were also found in Germany, Spain and Italy, and the whole western Europe fell into a serious crisis of mad cow disease. On February 22nd, 2006, French farmers and herdsmen who suffered heavy losses due to the mad cow disease crisis held a protest demonstration when French Prime Minister Jospin visited the 38th Paris International Agricultural Expo. They expressed strong dissatisfaction with the government's failure to take effective measures to protect the interests of farmers and herdsmen.
(C) the expansion of the mad cow disease crisis
The mad cow disease crisis within the EU has intensified trade friction. The most obvious example is the "British-French beef war". Although the European Union abolished the ban on British beef exports in 1999, the French government still refused to lift the ban. In 20001February, the European Court of Justice ordered France to lift the ban, which was rejected by the French government. Britain is strongly dissatisfied that it is not "preventing the spread of mad cow disease" in France, but trade protectionism. For this reason, some British importers boycotted French fruits, alcohol and other foods, which had a negative impact on the trade between the two countries. With the further spread of mad cow disease, similar trade frictions are also inevitable, which has affected the normal operation of the free flow of goods within the EU.
As a result, the differences surrounding the EU's common agricultural policy have further widened. After the mad cow disease crisis, some members asked for funds from the agricultural budget for other projects to support the cattle industry. However, some members believe that this will lead to confusion in EU agricultural policy. More harm to the interests of member States. Xerox, a member of the European Commission in charge of agricultural affairs, even said that the common agricultural policy should be re-examined. The German and French governments have revised the EU agricultural policy and set the objectives of the common agricultural policy. Only by fundamentally changing can people believe in the reliability of the common agricultural policy. They also suggested that agricultural aid should be rearranged to make agricultural and financial support meet the standards of protecting consumers' rights, protecting the environment and protecting animals, so as to replace the poorly managed agricultural tax support policy. EU agricultural policy reform has always been very sensitive, and the result will not cause division within the EU. Although the European Commission has put forward a number of agricultural reform programs on the issue of mad cow disease, due to the different interests of EU countries, it is difficult to reconcile their positions, so no consensus can be reached.
The unified EU market is questioned. The opening of internal borders in the European Union has facilitated trade and transportation, but the abolition of various measures has curbed the spread of diseases, opened the door for various criminals and made the spread of diseases easier.
The mad cow disease crisis has had a negative impact on the enlargement of the European Union. The EU has decided to accept new members from Central and Eastern Europe from the beginning of 2003 on the principle of "mature development". However, the disputes within the EU caused by this disease will greatly reduce the confidence of many countries applying for membership, and also make the negotiations between the EU and the countries applying for membership more difficult. In June 2000, the EU and the first batch of candidate countries involved in the most sensitive issues such as agricultural subsidies and free movement of labor, and the negotiations were deadlocked due to different positions. Most candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe are agricultural countries. Getting subsidies from the EU's common agricultural policy to make them members is one of the important goals of its membership. According to the final agreement reached in the Uruguay Round negotiations, the EU must gradually reduce the high subsidies for agricultural policies. Therefore, the number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe after the EU strives for EU subordinate institutions is limited, which is really different from the original intention of the candidate countries.
(D) The crisis of mad cow disease continues.
At the beginning of 2002, the latest estimate of epidemiologists recognized by the Royal Institute of Science, Technology and Medicine in London predicted that the number of deaths from mad cow disease in Britain would gradually increase to 50,000 from 2000 to 2008, most likely reaching100,000. Laboratory tests have proved that mad cow disease can be transmitted to sheep by injecting infected sheep substances into cattle brains or feeding infected feed. If so, the total number of deaths may increase by 20% to 50%. According to the worst forecast, within 80 hours, there will be150,000 people in Britain who will die of mad cow disease due to eating beef and mutton. Researchers at the Royal Institute in London stressed that there are many unknown factors-especially the incubation period after eating infected beef and mutton-which may appear when the clinical symptoms of infection are uncertain. A preliminary study in 200 1 year found that 1% sheep may be infected with mad cow disease, and it was found that people were worried that 40 million sheep in Britain might be completely destroyed. On May 23, 2002, the European Food Standards Agency reported that the monitoring association of mad cow disease suggested taking measures to prevent the outbreak of mad cow disease in sheep. The agency advises consumers not to eat mutton, mutton and goat mutton. Scientists predict that the new Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has an incubation period of decades, and the impact of mad cow disease on human beings is long-term and has great uncertainty.
[case]
(A) the success of the British government's late crisis management
1, pay more attention to exchange information. The information channel of government crisis management and crisis communication regularly informs the public and the European Commission of the process of crisis management.
2. Pay attention to the cooperation between various departments and management during the crisis. Let the public know the crisis correctly through various research institutions and avoid excessive panic. Improve the ability to cope with the crisis. Information about the crisis is shared among institutions, and crisis managers improve the exchange of crisis management and information technology through training. Designated by the Ministry of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is mainly responsible for crisis management.
3. A series of concrete and effective measures have been taken to ensure food safety, and the research on mad cow disease has been strengthened; Slaughtering infected cattle; Protect the beef market; Slaughter subsidies, increase consumers' confidence, buy in advance in the market, maintain the price system of beef, and be funded by the government for the whole industry, corporate restructuring and other personal support.
4. Coordinate with the EU and other European countries to prevent the crisis from worsening and expanding. The EU abides by the Florence Framework Agreement, strives for lifting the ban and reorganizes the British beef industry. In view of the effectiveness of the British government's crisis management, the European Union lifted the ban on British beef exports in August 1, 1999.
(B) Britain and the European Union in the crisis management of mad cow disease lessons
1, don't listen to advice, deceive yourself. On the one hand, the British government announced the appointment of experts to investigate Mad Cow Disease in Harada. On the other hand, it said that there was no evidence that Mad Cow Disease could be transmitted to humans, which was reassuring. The Minister of Agriculture even openly ate beef burgers on TV programs. It was not until March 1996 that it was officially admitted that mad cow disease could be transmitted to humans, but it was too late. The failure of British government's crisis management directly led to the spread and chain reaction of the initial crisis.
2, nothing, wrong is wrong. It is not clear to convey the seriousness of the crisis to cattle farmers, beef operators and consumers. At the same time, cattle farmers are unwilling to lose money by refusing to buy the market price in Niu Bing, so it is possible to find infected cattle markets to sell, leading to a large number of beef entering the market.
3, short-sighted, causing trouble. In order to reduce the immediate economic losses, no decisive measures are taken. Although Britain considered protein in animal feed as the biggest suspected cause of mad cow disease in 1988, it was not until 1996 that the sale of this kind of feed was officially banned all over the world, which was delayed for 8 years. In order to reduce the immediate economic losses, as many as 70 countries and regions have imported protein feed that may be infected with mad cow disease virus without decisive measures.
4. Slow response and lagging management. 1990 Germany, France, Austria and other countries have banned the import of British beef, and the European Union and the European Commission proposed to implement this measure. However, the Committee has never realized the serious consequences-on the one hand, it agreed to measures to protect citizens' health and hygiene, on the other hand, it threatened members of the European Court of Justice to judge the legality of the ban and forced countries to lift it. 1996 only after learning that people will be infected with mad cow disease did they realize the seriousness of the crisis. It has been more than ten years since the outbreak of the mad cow disease crisis, and the possible solutions are outdated.
5, the mechanism is flawed, and no one has written it. The outbreak and expansion of the mad cow disease crisis exposed the domestic crisis in the EU, especially the institutional problems within the EU. Under the leadership of the General Directorate of the European Union, almost all the research and management on the crisis are concentrated in the military-security field. There is no special secretary-general in charge of protecting public health in Europe, which is the reason why the problem of mad cow disease began to break out in the European Union.
(C) Case Enlightenment
1, with the deepening of European integration, the problems of one country will inevitably affect the whole EU, and how to enhance the ability to cope with internal crises will become more and more important.
2. The role of crisis management experts is very important. Modern society is becoming more and more complicated, and the rapid development of science and technology has brought more mystery to mankind. Crisis managers need a large number of information professionals and experts in related fields to cope with the uncertainty of the crisis.
3. The heavy price of violating the laws of nature. Cattle used to live on herbivores. In order to reduce costs and increase profits, people use modern biotechnology to produce artificial feed on a large scale, "force" to eat this artificial high-protein cow, and "eat" the feed is easy to be infected with diseases caused by prions. Mad cow disease "is the price we pay for violating the natural order."
4. It is necessary to pay attention to the food security crisis. Food safety is related to the vital interests of the people. The government's prevention and control of food safety crisis reflects the government's management level, and its collateral effect is extensive, which will involve all levels of the country's social, political, legal and economic life.
5. Countries in transition are more vulnerable to floods and crises because of the gray economy. If all strict crisis prevention and management measures are to be effective, it also depends on the management ability of the government and the orderly conduct of the market, otherwise it will be difficult to supervise. In a huge and disorderly market, the problem of mad cow disease will appear sooner or later.
6. The crisis of mad cow disease is different from the pure political, economic and social crisis. With the escalation of the epidemic, it has a profound scientific background, and also involves sociological issues such as management level and public crisis. In the field of crisis management, the worse the visibility of the crisis site, the more complicated and arduous the management. Coping with this crisis requires comprehensive ability, which requires not only in-depth scientific research and scientific handling of the crisis, but also improving government functions, strengthening effective management and communicating with the public in time.