Policy switch could be beneficial if it deflects consumer attention from the pyres Exports of meat and livestock have emerged again as one of the most contentious issues confronting agriculture minister Nick Brown and his colleagues in their attempts to at least give an impression of adopting consistent strategy and tactics for dealing with the FMD disaster. The official message for traders returning to work after Easter was of a reluctant and not quite confirmed policy reversal over vaccination, and reactions from the processing sector were predictable But unexpected responses could be heard among producers. By Wednesday MAFF spokesmen were indicating a vaccination programme was imminent, and were having trouble convincing the media this was not a U-turn from the original policy of culling infected and endangered animals. From the viewpoint of major retailers and some, though not all, of their biggest meat suppliers, a policy switch could seem beneficial if it deflected consumers' attention from the on-farm slaughter and burning of stock which had clearly contributed to a downturn in demand. In this confusion it was still possible to detect the influence of the export issue, which had been the main reason for imposing a culling only policy rather than vaccination in the first place. On Tuesday the Scottish authorities announced they would not follow MAFF in starting a vaccination scheme, claiming use of the vaccine would alienate export customers, some maybe permanently, and Scotland's livestock and meat sectors were much more export dependent than England's. Strengthening opposition was also evident among the NFU leadership in England and Wales, although there was disagreement among the producers: two prominent figures in the Cumbrian National Farmers' Union were reported speaking in favour of vaccination, one saying: "Let's face it, we have lost our export market anyway." {{M/E MEAT }}