Livestock farmers have every right to disagree with and protest against the measures taken to tackle foot‑and‑mouth disease. We live in a democracy. On the other hand, they cannot oppose measures simply for the sake of opposition, present themselves as experts on issues where they clearly are not, or issue threats, as was done yesterday by the spokesperson of the group “Voice of Livestock Farmers”, Christodoulos Christodoulou. He signalled a new mobilisation and warned that it “will be very dynamic, because people are fed up”.
It should first be noted that this newly formed association does not represent all livestock farmers, but perhaps a louder segment of them. As long as it is unclear whom it represents and how many farmers it speaks for, it cannot reasonably demand meetings with the President of the Republic or the Minister of Agriculture.
What certainly cannot be easily accepted is the outright questioning of European protocols on foot‑and‑mouth disease. Assertions that these measures are European “tricks” aimed at imposing unjustified culling of animals are untenable.
These protocols did not emerge arbitrarily or to serve hidden agendas. They are the product of scientific knowledge, decades of experience and crisis management, often in countries where outbreaks devastated entire livestock sectors. Foot‑and‑mouth disease is not a minor illness. It is extremely contagious and, if it spirals out of control, the consequences will far outweigh today’s protests.
The reality is harsh but clear. In such cases, measures are not taken to punish livestock farmers but to protect overall production, food safety and, ultimately, the wider economy. Failure to apply them would carry a far heavier cost for everyone – and first and foremost for the farmers themselves.
This does not mean, of course, that the state bears no responsibility. It does, and a serious one. Authorities must inform the public clearly and in good time, provide financial support to those affected, ensure fair and prompt compensation and build a relationship of trust with the sector. That is where policy handling is judged – not only on the measures themselves, but on how they are explained and implemented.