MEAT and milk from animals vaccinated against foot-and-mouth would find a market among retailers, according to the food industry.

The reaction of consumers and supermarkets was one of the key reasons why the National Farmers' Union resisted vaccination in the outbreak in 2001.

But this week, NFU spokesman for the North West Carl Hudspith said the issue was now "much clearer" and the food industry "did not appear to be too concerned."

"It is clear that meat from vaccinated animals will not need to be marked or cross stamped at the point of sale," he said.

However, pro-vaccinators from 2001 continue to argue that this hurdle was overstated by the NFU and the Government at the time. Europe has consumed vaccinated meat and milk for more than 40 years and supermarkets sell Argentinian beef, which has been vaccinated at least twice.

But while the benefits of emergency vaccination might be shown in a future outbreak, the NFU's Cumbria county chairman Alistair Mackintosh argued that it was still important to fight for foot-and-mouth-free status' since consumers had shown that they preferred their meat with as little chemical interference as possible.

Meanwhile, in the years since the scenes of burning pyres of culled cattle, export and scientific hurdles to vaccine-use have been lessened.

In 2001, many in the livestock industry rejected vaccination because it would have taken longer to resume exports after the last foot-and-mouth case. There were also fears over the efficacy of any vaccine and that vaccinated animals could themselves become disease carriers' prolonging the crisis.

But since then, the EU has allowed nations to regain foot-and-mouth-free status six months instead of a year after the end of vaccination.

That decision followed a European inquiry and the UK's Royal Society inquiry into foot-and-mouth science which concluded that the carrier risk' had been exaggerated and there were no longer any technical, scientific, trade or cultural barriers to vaccine use.' It also urged scientists to validate new tests to differentiate vaccinated animals from those that had recovered from foot-and-mouth, suggesting this would allow the dismantling of trade barriers against vaccinating nations.

A Defra spokesman said this week the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright was making "good progress" with that work.

Trade groups the Meat and Livestock Commission and Dairy UK both said they were happier with the new Defra contingency plan and that the nation was more prepared than in 2001, although any decision to vaccinate was still "a difficult one."

"There should not be an in-built assumption that Defra will slaughter or vaccinate in another outbreak, it should be dependent on the particular circumstances," said Dr Ed Komorowski, technical director of Dairy UK.

On the ground in Cumbria, there is still dispute about the relative merits of the disease control strategies.

MP Tim Collins said farmers still felt they had not had assurances that vaccinated meat would find a market. It was also not clear whether the Government would offer compensation or if the value of livestock would be depressed if they chose to slaughter vaccinated animals.

"These questions have to be answered. It is alarming that we still are not clear about what would happen if there was another outbreak and are still waiting for answers about what happened in 2001," added Mr Collins.