Red Meat Industry Service have raised concern of another impending court case with private veterinary organisations in regards to the draft scheme relating to the preventive vaccination of livestock
Image: Pexels/Pixabay
A new legal battle is brewing in South Africa’s livestock sector, with the Red Meat Industry Services (RMIS) warning that impending court action by private veterinary groups could disrupt efforts to contain the ongoing outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD).
The development follows last week’s ruling by the Gauteng North High Court in Pretoria, which declined to grant urgent relief to agricultural organisations seeking to challenge government control over vaccine distribution.
Now, fresh litigation threatens to further complicate the rollout of a national vaccination programme at a critical stage.
RMIS on Friday said it became aware of the planned court action only on Thursday, cautioning that any delay in vaccination would have far-reaching consequences across the agricultural value chain — from producers and feedlots to abattoirs and consumers.
“This is expected to delay vaccination at a critical stage of the outbreak and impact every part of the value chain. This delay will add to the pressure the value chain is already experiencing.”
At the heart of the dispute is a draft government scheme governing preventive vaccination. RMIS has expressed concern that the legal challenge, reportedly backed by veterinary organisations, could slow down implementation and add pressure to an already strained system.
The organisation also questioned why private veterinarians, who operate within the same ecosystem, would pursue legal action that could hinder disease control efforts.
According to RMIS, the case argues that the State should bear the cost of vaccination rather than producers, a position it said may appear supportive but could lead to bottlenecks if supply remains centrally controlled.
RMIS further raised alarm over opposition to its traceability platform, a system designed to support livestock movement, vaccination tracking and continued trade under FMD conditions. The body insisted that the platform is intended to assist coordination within the value chain, not to regulate or override statutory authorities.
“For the value chain, the priority is speed and continuity. The cost of delay is often higher than the cost of vaccination, and the value chain cannot afford to wait,” it said.
The potential fallout extends beyond the red meat sector. RMIS highlighted risks to dairy and pork industries, noting that uninterrupted animal movement is critical for milk production, while pigs can amplify the spread of FMD, making timely vaccination essential.
“Dairy producers depend on uninterrupted animal movement and herd health to maintain milk production, while in the pork sector, pigs act as amplifiers of FMD, making vaccination critical to limiting further spread,” it said.
“When vaccination is delayed, that flow slows across the system — placing pressure not only on red meat producers, but on the broader livestock and food production value chain.”
The organisation also suggested there may be divisions within the veterinary community, claiming not all members of the Ruminant Veterinary Association of South Africa (Ruvasa) were consulted before the legal action was initiated.
However, in a joint statement, the South African Veterinary Association (Sava) and Ruvasa strongly defended their stance, criticising what they described as a legally flawed provision in the draft vaccination scheme.
The groups objected in particular to a requirement that veterinarians registered with the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC) must seek additional approval from RMIS — a private entity — before participating in the national vaccination programme.
Dr Ziyanda Qwalela, president of Sava, said while the profession supports urgent action to combat FMD, it cannot endorse measures that undermine legal frameworks or professional independence.
“Requiring State-regulated professionals to be vetted by a private entity encroaches on the statutory authority of the SAVC and risks establishing a troubling precedent,” Qwalela said.
Echoing these concerns, Dr Dave Midgley, CEO of Ruvasa, warned that the proposed framework introduces significant legal and practical risks for veterinarians tasked with implementing the programme.
“This provision does not help them; it ties their hands with red tape and exposes them to a legal minefield. The scheme creates a total vacuum of liability. If our members, acting in good faith, administer a vaccine under this flawed structure and an adverse event occurs, the question at hand would be who is the person who would be liable,” Midgley said.
“A hefty dispute would exist whether or if it is the RMIS, the State or the Veterinarian who administered it. No responsible professional can be expected to work under such reckless ambiguity.”
BUSINESS REPORT