Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Newsroom historic archives | New FAO newsroom
The 'hidden' epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease
The major outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the United Kingdom has put the spotlight on Europe. But many parts of the developing world have to deal with the virus every day. This interview with Dr. Peter Roeder, FAO animal health officer recently returned from South Asia, highlights some of the issues they face.
|
|
|
|
FAO animal health officer Peter Roeder |
It is difficult to know just how much FMD there is at any one time. Faced with the impossibility of realistic control within the resources available, many countries choose not to quantify the extent of the problem; instead they simply cope with the consequences. For many countries, an outbreak of the size the UK has experienced -- 1 500 herd outbreaks in 4 months -- would not cause serious alarm, except for the farmers affected.
FMD is endemic in a number of developing countries.
How does it affect them?
In several ways. One issue is lost production of meat and
milk. Three weeks ago, I met a farmer in Bangladesh who owns
eight cows. When FMD hit, their milk yield dropped by over
70 per cent in just a couple of days. Last year, when FMD
struck, four out of his eight cows aborted. Of the four
calves that were born, three died. Ironically, the virus
currently hitting farmers there is probably caused by the
same Pan Asian type O strain responsible for more than
1 500 outbreaks in the United Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
A Bangladeshi farmer and a cow with FMD. The cow is salivating because of lesions in its mouth. |
What are the trade implications for developing
countries hit by FMD?
Foot-and-mouth disease is important from the international
trade point of view because of the financial implications.
The developed nations try hard to keep the disease out
because it lowers milk production and slows the growth rate
of pigs and cattle, leading to massive losses. So countries
invest heavily to keep themselves free of FMD, as can be
seen from the estimated US$30 to 60 billion that it will
cost the UK to eliminate the disease.
The industrialized countries also put in place trade barriers on livestock and livestock products as an additional safeguard against importing the virus. As a result, many developing nations that could export meat are not able to enter the global markets.
|
|
|
|
Cattle in a market in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. |
So what should the industrialized countries be doing
to protect themselves?
For the developed nations to be more secure in their
production, they have to do something about reducing the
risk from uncontrolled FMD and other epidemic diseases in
developing countries, and they have to see to it that there
is progressive control of them. Helping the developing
countries with this problem is enlightened self-interest,
not aid. It is a global market, and the rich countries have
to do something about the areas of the globe in which these
diseases exist.
Where are the hotbeds of FMD?
Latin America was well on the way to eradicating the
disease, but that progress has been reversed, with
Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay all fighting outbreaks.
Elsewhere in much of Africa and Asia, the viruses -- because
there are different strains, which are very different from
each other -- are moving through the population all the
time. FMD is always present, for example, in at least one of
the countries of Southeast Asia. The problem gets worse when
an event such as the flooding of the Mekong River takes
place. People are forced to move onto higher land and
congregate their livestock, increasing virus transmission.
Returning to their villages sparks new epidemics.
Is there anywhere in the world that can be considered
safe from FMD?
Not safe, but some countries have a very good history of
control. Probably the major successes are Australia and New
Zealand, which have never been infected, and the United
States, which has been free of FMD since 1928. Europe had
been largely free in recent years, except for a couple of
incursions into Greece and Italy. But the vulnerability of
the industrialized countries is graphically illustrated by
the problem in the United Kingdom. None of these places is
free from risk, and the risk is increasing.
Whether or not to vaccinate animals against FMD has
emerged as a subject of heated debate. Where does FAO
stand?
It depends on the context. Good control of an outbreak is
certainly possible with FMD vaccine. But there are many
studies showing that stamping out an isolated outbreak of
the disease -- slaughtering infected or exposed animals --
is usually the best process. It eliminates the virus and
enables you to quickly be recognized as free from FMD, which
allows you to resume selling your cattle.
|
"Helping
the developing countries with |
|
|
p |
Vaccination to get rid of the disease once it's established is easier, since you know what virus you are dealing with. The problem is that even after vaccination, animals can still become infected. Infected cattle can carry the disease for at least two years and are believed to generate new outbreaks. And vaccine is expensive. There is no doubt that in Southeast Asia, for example, one could eradicate foot-and-mouth disease by vaccinating animals. But there are around 110 million buffaloes and cattle, and if you include pigs, the number more than doubles. So it's unrealistic to think about a strategy based only on vaccination.
29 May 2001
See our previous articles:
Related links