Why Steenhuisen’s Strawman on Vaccination Is Misleading and What Can Be Done

No serious practitioner is calling for uncontrolled vaccination as a solution for the current foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) crisis. What farmers and industry are asking for is a workable, auditable system that suppresses disease now, while preserving the ability to strengthen traceability and market access over time. This is not a choice between chaos and control. It is a choice between functional control and regulatory paralysis.

The idea that vaccination must wait until the entire livestock sector complies with export-grade traceability misunderstands how disease control works in practice. International animal health standards do not demand perfection before action. Under the Terrestrial Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health, what matters is credible control: vaccination under official veterinary authority, documented coverage, surveillance, and records that allow the competent authority to demonstrate where vaccines were used, when they were administered, and under whose authorisation. That is evidence of control, not evidence of a flawless system.

South Africa already understands this principle. Export-oriented value chains operate every day under high levels of traceability and audit. Export feedlots and abattoirs comply with strict movement controls, documentation requirements, and inspection regimes that meet demanding market conditions. These systems exist precisely because the rules are clear and the incentives align. Their existence shows that traceability can work without requiring every producer in the country to meet the same standard at the same time.

The real problem is not that traceability is impossible. It is the assumption that it must be uniform across the entire sector before vaccination can move faster. That assumption does not improve biosecurity. It stalls systems, pushes activity outside formal controls, and allows the virus to circulate longer.

Realistic response

A realistic response to FMD recognises that different production systems have different capacities. Pretending otherwise does not reduce risk, it hides it. The sensible approach is layered, not binary. At the base layer, the immediate priority is not individual animal identification, electronic tagging, or complete movement histories. The priority is traceability of vaccination.

That is far simpler than it is being made out to be. South Africa could roll out a national vaccination record system quickly using a standardised vaccination record, without waiting for a new traceability law or complex new technology. This is not primarily a legislative issue. It is a regulatory and administrative one.

At minimum, a vaccination record should capture:

• the veterinary practice or departmental office responsible for issuing and administering the vaccine,
• the GPS location, holding number, or GLN of the farm or site where vaccination occurred,
• the name and contact details of the livestock owner or custodian, and
• the number of doses administered, including the date and vaccine batch reference.

That single record would serve as both a national vaccination traceability record held by the veterinary authority and a vaccination certificate for the farmer. It would be auditable, transparent, and scalable, without pretending to solve every traceability challenge in one step.

This is where the “free-for-all” argument collapses. Accelerated vaccination does not mean unregulated vaccination. It means expanding vaccination capacity through controlled authorisation. Where private procurement of vaccine is permitted, it should operate in parallel with State capacity, not as a substitute for it, and be subject to the same level of official authorisation, recording, and accountability.

If the current system does not allow enough authorised vaccinators to operate at scale, that is not a reason to block vaccination. It is a reason to urgently expand the pool of authorised vaccinators through directives and delegated authority, with clear accountability and standardised records. Functional disease control systems do this as a matter of course when pressure increases.

Higher levels of traceability and market access can and should be layered on over time. Producers who want access to premium markets should be expected to meet higher standards. That is how incentives work. But forcing the entire sector to comply upfront with export-level traceability does not protect markets. It delays vaccination, entrenches non-compliance, and keeps the virus circulating longer than it should.

The real risk South Africa faces is not vaccination. It is delay. Every month spent debating hypothetical risks of accelerated vaccination is a month in which producers absorb losses, herds are liquidated informally, and trust in the animal health system erodes further. A controlled, documented vaccination rollout is not a “free-for-all”. It is the minimum viable response in a country facing sustained FMD pressure.

South Africa does not need strawmen. It needs a vaccination system that can function at scale, now.

Owen Anderson is a farmer and agricultural development practitioner with experience across commercial and communal production systems. He writes on agricultural development and applied policy, focusing on practical implications for agricultural producers.

The author thanks Dr Biandri Joubert for reviewing and sanity checking the lay interpretation of a complex regulatory and animal health issue. Any errors remain the author’s own.