The British Veterinary Zoological Society has become the latest group of scientists to publicly question the government's policy of badger culling as a means of tackling bovine TB.

BVZS released a policy document (available here) this week in which the association said that it "does not believe there is currently scientific evidence to suggest that a targeted cull of badgers can contribute positively to the overall control of bTB in cattle, can be employed in a way that protects animal welfare, or is economically viable."

BVZS suggested in its policy document that the best course of action for both cattle and wildlife would be focusing on cattle to cattle transmission and biosecurity measures. The society made a series of recommendations based on "scientific evidence currently available." These recommendations include:

• Cattle management methods both on individual farms and through control of movements between farms
• Better biosecurity to limit badger cattle interactions
• Badger vaccination and, when made available, cattle vaccination.

BVZS also urged the wider British Veterinary Association to "relook at its current position regarding culling, in light of the weight of current scientific thinking."

The group's declaration is the latest in a long line of pronouncements over the government's controversial policy. Although bTB is clearly a growing problem in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, opposition to government and industry's preferred method of TB control is widespread and the debate's profile is only increasing as culling in two trial areas of the South West looms ever closer.

In February, Durham University Professor Peter Atkins published the results of a study which, he concluded, suggested that badger culling would prove ineffective. He also questioned the "received wisdom that bTB would have stayed in badgers which weren't culled when [infected cattle were] and they then reinfected cattle stocks."

Professor Atkins said last month, "No one has yet proved definitively which direction the infection travels between species. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which ran from 1998-2006 indicated complex, interwoven patterns of infection and concluded badger culling was unlikely to be effective for the future control of bTB."

In October 2012, 30 leading scientists, including wildlife disease experts, wrote a letter to The Observer newspaper in which they stated their opposition to cull proposals and called on the government to rethink its disease control strategy.

On Thursday, Defra responded to BVZS by claiming that scientific opinion does support culling. A Defra spokesperson told Farming Online, "Independent scientific experts agreed that culling badgers in the right way can result in a meaningful reduction of new incidences of TB in cattle. Culling is just one part of our comprehensive TB eradication policy, including investment into workable vaccines, tighter cattle movement controls, and stronger bio-security on farms."

However, David Williams, chair of the Badger Trust, welcomed the BVZS announcement and criticised Defra's stance. He said, "The Coalition still attempts to claim that the cull is based on science. But they are at odds with almost every strand of independent scientific advice. How much longer can they pretend to have science on their side?"

Mr Williams accused the government of basing its strategy on "cherry picked" information from the Independent Scientific Group, ignoring ISG's key conclusions and delaying cattle management measures that would prove effective in combating the disease's spread.

He continued, "The Coalition constantly defends itself by saying it can't stand by and do nothing. But it has contributed massively to the problem by delaying much-needed improvements in cattle management [and] emphasising the need for biosecurity but not enforcing it."