foot-and-mouth disease

{{multiple image

| total_width = 250

| image1 = Shorthorn heifer foot-and-mouth disease1.png

| caption1 = Drooling due to foot-and-mouth disease

| image2 = Shorthorn heifer foot-and-mouth disease2.png

| caption2 = Infected hoof of the same heifer

}}

The incubation period for FMD virus has a range between one and 12 days.{{cite journal|last1=Arzt|first1=J.|last2=Pacheco|first2=J. M.|last3=Rodriguez|first3=L. L.|title=The early pathogenesis of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle after aerosol inoculation. Identification of the nasopharynx as the primary site of infection|journal=Veterinary Pathology|date=29 June 2010|volume=47|issue=6|pages=1048–1063|doi=10.1177/0300985810372509|pmid=20587691|hdl=10217/40276|s2cid=26021996|url=https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/10217/40276/1/Arzt_colostate_0053A_10076.pdf|hdl-access=free}}{{open access}}{{cite news|url=http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/08/04/105713/foot-and-mouth-symptoms.html|title=Foot-and-Mouth Symptom Guide|publisher=Farmers Weekly|date=2007-08-04|access-date=2007-08-06|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080708204329/http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/08/04/105713/foot-and-mouth-symptoms.html|archive-date=2008-07-08}} The disease is characterized by high fever that declines rapidly after two to three days, blisters inside the mouth that lead to excessive secretion of stringy or foamy saliva and to drooling, and blisters on the feet that may rupture and cause lameness.{{cite journal|last1=Stenfeldt|title=Early Events in the Pathogenesis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Pigs; Identification of Oropharyngeal Tonsils as Sites of Primary and Sustained Viral Replication|journal=PLOS ONE|date=September 3, 2014|display-authors=etal|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0106859|pmid=25184288|pmc=4153717|volume=9|issue=9|pages=e106859|bibcode=2014PLoSO...9j6859S|doi-access=free}} Adult animals may suffer weight loss from which they do not recover for several months, as well as swelling in the testicles of mature males, and cows' milk production can decline significantly. Though most animals eventually recover from FMD, the disease can lead to myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle){{cite journal | pmc = 4105858 | pmid = 25015718 | doi = 10.1186/s13028-014-0042-6 | volume = 56 | title = Morphologic and phenotypic characteristics of myocarditis in two pigs infected by foot-and mouth disease virus strains of serotypes O or A | year = 2014 | journal = Acta Vet. Scand. | pages = 42 | last1 = Stenfeldt | first1 = C | last2 = Pacheco | first2 = JM | last3 = Borca | first3 = MV | last4 = Rodriguez | first4 = LL | last5 = Arzt | first5 = J| issue = 1 | doi-access = free }} and death, especially in newborn animals. Some infected ruminants remain asymptomatic carriers, but they nonetheless carry the virus and may be able to transmit it to others. Pigs cannot serve as asymptomatic carriers.{{cite journal|last1=C. Stenfeldt|title=Detection of Foot-and-mouth Disease Virus RNA and Capsid Protein in Lymphoid Tissues of Convalescent Pigs Does Not Indicate Existence of a Carrier State|journal= Transboundary and Emerging Diseases|volume=63|issue=2|pages=152–164|date=2014|display-authors=etal|doi=10.1111/tbed.12235|pmid=24943477}}

Subclinical (asymptomatic) infections can be classified as neoteric or persistent based on when they occur and whether the animal is infectious. Neoteric subclinical infections are acute infections, meaning they occur soon after an animal is exposed to the FMD virus (about 1 to 2 days) and last about 8 to 14 days.{{cite journal |last1=Yadav |first1=Shankar |last2=Stenfeldt |first2=Carolina |last3=Branan |first3=Matthew A. |last4=Moreno-Torres |first4=Karla I. |last5=Holmstrom |first5=Lindsey K. |last6=Delgado |first6=Amy H. |last7=Arzt |first7=Jonathan |title=Parameterization of the Durations of Phases of Foot-And-Mouth Disease in Cattle |journal=Frontiers in Veterinary Science |date=9 August 2019 |volume=6 |page=263 |doi=10.3389/fvets.2019.00263|pmid=31448297 |pmc=6696987 |doi-access=free }} Acute infections are characterized by a high degree of replicating virus in the pharynx. In a neoteric subclinical infection, the virus remains in the pharynx and does not spread into the blood as it would in a clinical infection. Although animals with neoteric subclinical infections do not appear to have disease, they shed substantial amounts of virus in nasal secretions and saliva, so they are able to transmit the FMD virus to other animals. Neoteric subclinical infections often occur in vaccinated animals but can occur in unvaccinated animals as well.

Persistent subclinical infection (also referred to as a carrier state) occurs when an animal recovers from an acute infection but continues to have a small amount of replicating virus present in the pharynx. Cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats can all become carriers, but pigs cannot.{{cite journal |last1=Stenfeldt |first1=C. |last2=Pacheco |first2=J. M. |last3=Smoliga |first3=G. R. |last4=Bishop |first4=E. |last5=Pauszek |first5=S. J. |last6=Hartwig |first6=E. J. |last7=Rodriguez |first7=L. L. |last8=Arzt |first8=J. |title=Detection of Foot-and-mouth Disease Virus RNA and Capsid Protein in Lymphoid Tissues of Convalescent Pigs Does Not Indicate Existence of a Carrier State |journal=Transboundary and Emerging Diseases |date=April 2016 |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=152–164 |doi=10.1111/tbed.12235|pmid=24943477 }}{{cite journal |last1=Stenfeldt |first1=Carolina |last2=Pacheco |first2=Juan M. |last3=Singanallur |first3=Nagendrakumar B. |last4=Vosloo |first4=Wilna |last5=Rodriguez |first5=Luis L. |last6=Arzt |first6=Jonathan |title=Virulence beneath the fleece; a tale of foot-and-mouth disease virus pathogenesis in sheep |journal=PLOS ONE |date=31 December 2019 |volume=14 |issue=12 |page=e0227061 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0227061|pmid=31891626 |pmc=6938329 |bibcode=2019PLoSO..1427061S |doi-access=free }}{{cite journal |last1=Stenfeldt |first1=Carolina |last2=Eschbaumer |first2=Michael |last3=Rekant |first3=Steven I. |last4=Pacheco |first4=Juan M. |last5=Smoliga |first5=George R. |last6=Hartwig |first6=Ethan J. |last7=Rodriguez |first7=Luis L. |last8=Arzt |first8=Jonathan |title=The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Carrier State Divergence in Cattle |journal=Journal of Virology |date=15 July 2016 |volume=90 |issue=14 |pages=6344–6364 |doi=10.1128/JVI.00388-16|pmid=27147736 |pmc=4936139 |doi-access=free }} Animals can become carriers following acute infections with or without symptoms. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated animals can become carriers. Transmission of the FMD virus from carriers to susceptible animals is considered very unlikely under natural conditions and has not been conclusively demonstrated in field studies.

However, in an experiment where virus was collected from the pharynx of carrier cattle and inserted in the pharynx of susceptible cattle, the susceptible cattle became infected and developed characteristic blisters in the mouth and on the feet. This supports the theory that while the likelihood of a carrier spreading FMD is quite low, it is not impossible. It is not fully understood why ruminants but not pigs can become carriers or why some animals develop persistent infection while others do not. Both are areas of ongoing study.

Because vaccinated animals can become carriers, the waiting period to prove FMD-freedom is longer when vaccination rather than slaughter is used as an outbreak-control strategy. As a result, many FMD-free countries are resistant to emergency vaccination in case of in outbreak out of concern for the serious trade and economic implications of a prolonged period without FMD-free status.

Although the risk of transmission from an individual FMD carrier is considered to be very low, there are many carriers in FMD-endemic regions, possibly increasing the number of chances for carrier transmission to occur. Also, it can be difficult to determine if an asymptomatic infection is neoteric or persistent in the field, as both would be apparently healthy animals that test positive for the FMD virus. This fact complicates disease control, as the two types of subclinical infections have significantly different risks of spreading disease.

{{main|Foot-and-mouth disease virus}}

Of the seven serotypes{{cite web |url=http://copus.org.uk/page.asp?id=1253 |title=Foot and Mouth Virus Information |publisher=Copus.org.uk |access-date=2011-01-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071117155955/http://copus.org.uk/page.asp?id=1253 |archive-date=2007-11-17 }} of this virus, A, C, O, Asia 1, and SAT3 appear to be distinct lineages; SAT 1 and SAT 2 are unresolved clades.{{cite journal | last1 = Yoon | first1 = SH | year = 2011 | title = Phylogenomics and molecular evolution of foot-and-mouth disease virus | journal = Mol Cells | volume = 31 | issue = 5 | pages = 413–421 | doi=10.1007/s10059-011-0249-6 | pmid=21448588 | pmc=3887601}} The mutation rate of the protein-encoding sequences of strains isolated between 1932 and 2007 has been estimated to be 1.46 × 10⁻³ substitutions/site/year, a rate similar to that of other RNA viruses. The most recent common ancestor appears to have evolved about 481 years ago (early 16th century). This ancestor then diverged into two clades which have given rise to the extant circulating Euro-Asiatic and South African. SAT 1 diverged first 397{{when|date=March 2025}} years ago, followed by sequential divergence of serotype SAT 2 (396 years ago), A (147 years ago), O (121 years ago), Asia 1 (89 years ago), C (86 years ago), and SAT 3 (83 years ago). Bayesian skyline plot reveals a population expansion in the early 20th century that is followed by a rapid decline in population size from the late 20th century to the present day. Within each serotype, there was no apparent periodic, geographic, or host species influence on the evolution of global FMD viruses. At least seven genotypes of serotype Asia 1 are known.{{cite journal | last1 = Jamal | first1 = SM | last2 = Ferrari | first2 = G | last3 = Ahmed | first3 = S | last4 = Normann | first4 = P | last5 = Belsham | first5 = GJ | year = 2011 | title = Molecular characterization of serotype Asia-1 foot-and-mouth disease viruses in Pakistan and Afghanistan; emergence of a new genetic Group and evidence for a novel recombinant virus | journal = Infect Genet Evol | volume = 31| issue = 5| pages = 413–421| doi = 10.1007/s10059-011-0249-6 | pmid = 21448588 | pmc = 3887601 }}

The FMD virus can be transmitted in a number of ways, including close-contact, animal-to-animal spread, long-distance aerosol spread and fomites, or inanimate objects, typically fodder and motor vehicles. The clothes and skin of animal handlers such as farmers, standing water, and uncooked food scraps and feed supplements containing infected animal products can harbor the virus, as well. Cows can also catch FMD from the semen of infected bulls. Control measures include quarantine and destruction of both infected and healthy (uninfected) livestock, and export bans for meat and other animal products to countries not infected with the disease.{{citation needed|date=March 2022}}

There is significant variation in both susceptibility to infection and ability to spread disease between different species, virus strains, and transmission routes. For example, cattle are far more vulnerable than pigs to infection with aerosolized virus, and infected pigs produce 30 times the amount of aerosolized virus compared to infected cattle and sheep.{{cite journal |last1=Sellers |first1=R.F. |title=Quantitative aspects of the spread of foot and mouth disease |journal=Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Health |date=1971 |volume=41 |issue=6 |pages=431–439}}{{cite journal |last1=Donaldson |first1=A. I. |last2=Alexandersen |first2=S. |last3=Sorensen |first3=J. H. |last4=Mikkelsen |first4=T. |title=Relative risks of the uncontrollable (airborne) spread of FMD by different species |journal=Veterinary Record |date=May 2001 |volume=148 |issue=19 |pages=602–604 |doi=10.1136/vr.148.19.602|pmid=11386448 |s2cid=12025498 }} Also, pigs are particularly vulnerable to infection through the oral route.{{cite journal |last1=Stenfeldt |first1=C. |last2=Pacheco |first2=J.M. |last3=Rodriguez |first3=L.L. |last4=Arzt |first4=J. |title=Infection dynamics of foot-and-mouth disease virus in pigs using two novel simulated-natural inoculation methods |journal=Research in Veterinary Science |date=April 2014 |volume=96 |issue=2 |pages=396–405 |doi=10.1016/j.rvsc.2014.01.009|pmid=24548596 }} It has been demonstrated experimentally that FMD can be spread to pigs when they eat commercial feed products contaminated by the FMD virus. Also, the virus can remain active for extended periods of time in certain feed ingredients, especially soybean meal. Feed biosecurity practices have become an important area of study since a 2013 outbreak of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDV) in the US, thought to be introduced through contaminated feed.{{cite journal |last1=Bowman |first1=Andrew S |last2=Krogwold |first2=Roger A |last3=Price |first3=Todd |last4=Davis |first4=Matt |last5=Moeller |first5=Steven J |title=Investigating the introduction of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus into an Ohio swine operation |journal=BMC Veterinary Research |date=2015 |volume=11 |issue=1 |page=38 |doi=10.1186/s12917-015-0348-2|pmid=25881144 |pmc=4334577 |doi-access=free }}

Just as humans may spread the disease by carrying the virus on their clothes and bodies, animals that are not susceptible to the disease may still aid in spreading it. This was the case in Canada in 1952, when an outbreak flared up again after dogs had carried off bones from dead animals. Wolves are thought to play a similar role in the former Soviet Union.{{cite book | author = Graves, Will | url = http://www.wolvesinrussia.com/ | title = Wolves in Russia: Anxiety throughout the ages | year = 2007 | page = 222 | publisher = Detselig Enterprises | isbn = 978-1-55059-332-7 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090802182158/http://www.wolvesinrussia.com/ | archive-date = 2009-08-02 | access-date = 2008-05-16 }}

Daniel Rossouw Kannemeyer (1843–1925) published a note in the Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society volume 8 part 1 in which he links saliva-covered locusts with the spread of the disease.{{Cite book | url=https://archive.org/details/transactionsofso08roya | title=Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society| publisher=Cape Town, : The Society| year=1893}}

Transmission of the FMD virus is possible before an animal has apparent signs of disease, a factor that increases the risk that significant spread of the virus has occurred before an outbreak is detected. A 2011 experiment measured transmission timing in cattle infected with serotype O virus by exposing susceptible cattle in 24-hour increments. It estimated the infectious period of the infected cattle to be 1.7 days, but showed the cattle were only infectious for a few hours before they developed fevers or classic FMD lesions. The authors also showed that the infectious period would have been estimated to be much higher (4.2 to 8.2 days) if detection of virus had been used as a substitute for infectiousness.{{cite journal |last1=Charleston |first1=B. |last2=Bankowski |first2=B. M. |last3=Gubbins |first3=S. |last4=Chase-Topping |first4=M. E. |last5=Schley |first5=D. |last6=Howey |first6=R. |last7=Barnett |first7=P. V. |last8=Gibson |first8=D. |last9=Juleff |first9=N. D. |last10=Woolhouse |first10=M. E. J. |title=Relationship Between Clinical Signs and Transmission of an Infectious Disease and the Implications for Control |journal=Science |date=6 May 2011 |volume=332 |issue=6030 |pages=726–729 |doi=10.1126/science.1199884|pmid=21551063 |pmc=5844461 |bibcode=2011Sci...332..726C }} A similar 2016 experiment using serotype A virus exposed susceptible pigs to infected pigs for 8 hour periods and found that pigs were able to spread disease for a full day before developing signs of disease.{{cite journal |last1=Stenfeldt |first1=Carolina |last2=Pacheco |first2=Juan M. |last3=Brito |first3=Barbara P. |last4=Moreno-Torres |first4=Karla I. |last5=Branan |first5=Matt A. |last6=Delgado |first6=Amy H. |last7=Rodriguez |first7=Luis L. |last8=Arzt |first8=Jonathan |title=Transmission of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus during the Incubation Period in Pigs |journal=Frontiers in Veterinary Science |date=21 November 2016 |volume=3 |page=105 |doi=10.3389/fvets.2016.00105|pmid=27917386 |pmc=5116750 |doi-access=free }} Analysis of this experimental data estimated the infectious period to be approximately 7 days.{{cite journal |last1=Arzt |first1=Jonathan |last2=Branan |first2=Matthew A. |last3=Delgado |first3=Amy H. |last4=Yadav |first4=Shankar |last5=Moreno-Torres |first5=Karla I. |last6=Tildesley |first6=Michael J. |last7=Stenfeldt |first7=Carolina |title=Quantitative impacts of incubation phase transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus |journal=Scientific Reports |date=December 2019 |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=2707 |doi=10.1038/s41598-019-39029-0|pmid=30804426 |pmc=6389902 |bibcode=2019NatSR...9.2707A |doi-access=free }} Again, the study showed that detection of virus was not an accurate substitution for infectiousness. An accurate understanding of the parameters of infectiousness is an important component of building epidemiological models which inform disease control strategies and policies.

Humans can be infected with FMD through contact with infected animals, but this is extremely rare.{{cite journal |last1=Capella |first1=Giovanni Luigi |title=Foot and mouth disease in human beings. |journal=The Lancet |date=20 October 2001 |volume=358 |issue=9290 |page=1374 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06444-3 |pmid=11684262|s2cid=26534737 }} Some cases were caused by laboratory accidents. Because the virus that causes FMD is sensitive to stomach acid, it cannot spread to humans via consumption of infected meat, except in the mouth before the meat is swallowed. In the UK, the last confirmed human case occurred in 1966,{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070814c.htm |title=Foot and Mouth Disease update: further temporary control zone established in Surrey |publisher=Defra |date=2007-08-14 |access-date=2007-08-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000836/http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070814c.htm |archive-date=2007-09-27 |url-status=dead }}{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/footandmouth/story/0,,604980,00.html|title=Foot and Mouth Disease |work=The Guardian |date=2001-11-23|access-date=2007-08-14 | location=London | first=Simon | last=Jeffery}} and only a few other cases have been recorded in countries of continental Europe, Africa, and South America. Symptoms of FMD in humans include malaise, fever, vomiting, red ulcerative lesions (surface-eroding damaged spots) of the oral tissues, and sometimes vesicular lesions (small blisters) of the skin. According to a newspaper report, FMD killed two children in England in 1884, supposedly due to infected milk.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/footandmouth/story/0,,604980,00.html|title=Foot and mouth 'killed people in 1800s'|newspaper=The Guardian|date=2001-11-23|access-date=2007-08-14 | location=London | first=Simon | last=Jeffery}}

Another viral disease with similar symptoms, hand, foot and mouth disease, occurs more frequently in humans, especially in young children; certain other non-polio enteroviruses than the FMD virus are its cause. These viruses belong to the Enterovirus genus within the Picornaviridae.

Because FMD rarely infects humans, but spreads rapidly among animals, it is a much greater threat to the agriculture industry than to human health.{{cite journal|vauthors=Prempeh H, Smith R, Müller B|title=Foot and mouth disease: the human consequences|journal=The British Medical Journal|pmid=11238137|pmc=1119772|doi=10.1136/bmj.322.7286.565|volume=322|issue=7286|pages=565–566|year=2001}} It has been argued that FMD is a zoonotic disease,{{cite conference|vauthors=Bauer K|year=1997|title=Viral Zoonoses and Food of Animal Origin: A Re-Evaluation of Possible Hazards to Human Health|veditors=Kaaden OR, Czerny CP, Eichhorn W|publisher=Springer|chapter=Foot-and-mouth disease as zoonosis|pages=95–97|series=Archives of Virology, Supplementa|volume=13|isbn=978-3-211-83014-7|conference=9th Munich Symposium on Microbiology|doi=10.1007/978-3-7091-6534-8_9|pmid=9413529}} but it is not considered among them by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture due to the rarity of interspecies transmission.{{cite web|url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_ahfmd.pdf|title=Factsheet: Foot-and-Mouth Disease|publisher=Animal and Plant Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture|date=January 2002|access-date=9 January 2025}}{{cite web|url=https://extensiondisaster.net/hazard-resources/agricultural-zoonotic/foot-and-mouth-disease/|title=Foot And Mouth Disease|website=Extension Disaster Education Network|publisher=EDEN|year=2024|access-date=9 January 2025}}

File:Plum Island Animal Disease Center.jpg]]

Like other RNA viruses, the FMD virus continually evolves and mutates, thus one of the difficulties in vaccinating against it is the huge variation between, and even within, serotypes. No cross-protection has been seen between serotypes (a vaccine for one serotype will not protect against any others) and in addition, two strains within a given serotype may have nucleotide sequences that differ by as much as 30% for a given gene. This means FMD vaccines must be highly specific to the strain involved. Vaccination only provides temporary immunity that lasts from months to years.

Currently, the World Organisation for Animal Health recognizes countries to be in one of three disease states with regard to FMD: FMD present with or without vaccination, FMD-free with vaccination, and FMD-free without vaccination.{{cite web|title=List of FMD free Member Countries|publisher=OIE|url=http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/fmd/list-of-fmd-free-members/|access-date=2014-08-04|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140811072711/http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/fmd/list-of-fmd-free-members/|archive-date=2014-08-11}} Countries designated FMD-free without vaccination have the greatest access to export markets, so many developed nations, including Canada, the United States, and the UK, work hard to maintain their current status. Some countries such as Brazil and Argentina, which have large beef-exporting industries, practise vaccination in some areas, but have other vaccination-free zones.

Reasons cited for restricting export from countries using FMD vaccines include, probably most importantly, routine blood tests relying on antibodies cannot distinguish between an infected and a vaccinated animal,Canadian Food Inspection Agency Q&A, question 20. {{cite web |url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/fmdfie/questionse.shtml |title=Canadian Food Inspection Agency – Animal Health and Production– Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) – Questions and Answers |access-date=2008-01-26 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012185759/http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/fmdfie/questionse.shtml |archive-date=2007-10-12 }} which severely hampers screening of animals used in export products, risking a spread of FMD to importing countries. A widespread preventive vaccination would also conceal the existence of the virus in a country. From there, it could potentially spread to countries without vaccine programs. Lastly, an animal infected shortly after being vaccinated can harbor and spread FMD without showing symptoms itself, hindering containment and culling of sick animals as a remedy.

Many early vaccines used dead samples of the FMD virus to inoculate animals, but those early vaccines sometimes caused real outbreaks. In the 1970s, scientists discovered that a vaccine could be made using only a single key protein from the virus. The task was to produce enough quantities of the protein to be used in the vaccination. On June 18, 1981, the US government announced the creation of a vaccine targeted against FMD, the world's first genetically engineered vaccine.

The North American FMD Vaccine Bank is housed at the United States Department of Agriculture's Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory at Plum Island Animal Disease Center. The center, located {{convert|1.5|mi|km|abbr=on}} off the coast of Long Island, New York, is the only place in the United States where scientists can conduct research and diagnostic work on highly contagious animal diseases such as FMD. Because of this limitation, US companies working on FMD usually use facilities in other countries where such diseases are endemic.

File:Foot and Mouth 1872.jpg, Wales, 1872]]

The US has had nine FMD outbreaks since it was first recognized on the northeastern coast in 1870;{{Cite journal | pmid = 12523707| year = 2002| last1 = Correa Melo| first1 = E| title = Control of foot and mouth disease: The experience of the Americas| journal = Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics)| volume = 21| issue = 3| pages = 695–698, 689–694| last2 = López| first2 = A}} the most devastating happened in 1914. It originated from Michigan, but its entry into the stockyards in Chicago turned it into an epizootic. About 3,500 livestock herds were infected across the US, totaling over 170,000 cattle, sheep, and swine. The eradication came at a cost of US$4.5 million (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|4.5|1914}} million in {{Inflation/year|US}}).

A 1924 outbreak in California resulted not only in the slaughter of 109,000 farm animals, but also 22,000 deer.

The US had its latest FMD outbreak in Montebello, California, in 1929. This outbreak originated in hogs that had eaten infected meat scraps from a tourist steamship that had stocked meat in Argentina. Over 3,600 animals were slaughtered and the disease was contained in less than a month.{{cite web |url=http://www.eden.lsu.edu/Issues_View.aspx?IssueID=5f3b1efb-d295-4d8e-9cab-8e3bba3c3824 |title=Foot and Mouth Disease|website=EDEN |date=6 August 2009|access-date=2009-08-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091001041501/http://www.eden.lsu.edu/Issues_View.aspx?IssueID=5f3b1efb-d295-4d8e-9cab-8e3bba3c3824 |archive-date=2009-10-01}}{{cite web |last1=Segarra |first1=Alejandro E. |last2=Rawson |first2=Jean M. |title=Foot and Mouth Disease: A Threat to U.S. Agriculture |url=http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RS20890.pdf |publisher=Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress |access-date=2018-12-08 |date=16 April 2001 |id=RS20890 |archive-date=2013-09-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927185453/http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RS20890.pdf |url-status=dead }}

{{external media

| width = 160px

| float = upright

| headerimage=

| audio1 = [https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/podcast/high-steaks-at-the-border "High Steaks at the Border: When the United States and Mexico resolved their beef"], Distillations Podcast and transcript, Episode 240, April 25, 2019, Science History Institute}}

On December 26, 1946, the United States and Mexico jointly declared that FMD had been found in Mexico. Initially, proposals from Texans were for an animal-proof wall, to prevent animals from crossing the border and spreading the disease, but the two countries eventually managed to cooperate in a bilateral effort and eradicated the disease without building a wall. To prevent tension between ranchers and the veterinarians, public broadcasts over the radio and with speakers on trucks were used to inform Mexican ranchers why the U.S. veterinarians were working on their livestock. Ranchers who lost cattle due to being culled by the vets would receive financial compensation. However, the tension remained and resulted in clashes between local citizens and the military-protected U.S. veterinarians. These teams of veterinarians worked from outside the infection zone of the disease and worked their way to the heart of the epidemic. Over 60,000,000 injections were administered to livestock by the end of 1950.{{Cite journal|title=Foot and Mouth Disease in Mexico, 1946-1951|journal=Agricultural History|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3740791|last=Dusenberry|first=William|date=1955-04-07|volume=29|issue=2|pages=82–90|jstor=3740791}}{{cite web |title=High Steaks at the Border: When the United States and Mexico resolved their beef, Distillations Podcast and transcript, Episode 240|date=April 25, 2019 |url=https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/podcast/high-steaks-at-the-border |website=Science History Institute |access-date=27 August 2019}}

{{main|1967 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth epidemic}}

In October 1967, a farmer in Shropshire reported a lame sow, which was later diagnosed with FMD. The source was believed to be remains of legally imported infected lamb from Argentina and Chile. The virus spread, and in total, 442,000 animals were slaughtered and the outbreak had an estimated cost of £370 million (equivalent to £{{Inflation|UK|.37|1967}} billion in {{Inflation/year|UK}}).{{citation needed|date=January 2015}}

File:Where did Taiwan export Pork to between 1995 and 1998.png

Taiwan had previous epidemics of FMD in 1913–14 and 1924–29, but had since been spared,Foot-and-mouth virus: A global dilemma {{cite web |url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/02/27/farming.world/index.html |title=CNN – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos |access-date=2008-01-29 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080110234834/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/02/27/farming.world/index.html |archive-date=2008-01-10 }} and considered itself free of FMD as late as in the 1990s. On the 19th of March 1997, a sow at a farm in Hsinchu, Taiwan, was diagnosed with a strain of FMD that only infects swine. Mortality was high, nearing 100% in the infected herd. The cause of the epidemic was not determined, but the farm was near a port city known for its pig-smuggling industry and illegal slaughterhouses. Smuggled swine or contaminated meat are thus likely sources of the disease.

The disease spread rapidly among swine herds in Taiwan, with 200–300 new farms being infected daily. Causes for this include the high swine density in the area, with up to 6,500 hogs per square mile, feeding of pigs with untreated garbage, and the farms' proximity to slaughterhouses. Other systemic issues, such as lack of laboratory facilities, slow response, and initial lack of a vaccination program, contributed.

A complicating factor is the endemic spread of swine vesicular disease (SVD) in Taiwan. The symptoms are indistinguishable from FMD, which may have led to previous misdiagnosing of FMD as SVD. Laboratory analysis was seldom used for diagnosis, and FMD may thus have gone unnoticed for some time.

The swine depopulation was a massive undertaking, with the military contributing substantial manpower. At peak capacity, 200,000 hogs per day were disposed of, mainly by electrocution. Carcasses were disposed of by burning and burial, but burning was avoided in water resource-protection areas. In April, industrial incinerators were running around the clock to dispose of the carcasses.

Initially, 40,000 combined vaccine doses for the strains O-1, A-24, and Asia-1 were available and administered to zoo animals and valuable breeding hogs. At the end of March, half a million new doses for O-1 and Asia-1 were made available. On the May 3rd, 13 million doses of O-1 vaccine arrived, and both the March and May shipments were distributed free of charge. With a danger of vaccination crews spreading the disease, only trained farmers were allowed to administer the vaccine under veterinary supervision.

Taiwan had previously been the major exporter of pork to Japan,{{Cite web|url=http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/?country=249&product=658&productClass=HS&startYear=undefined&target=Product&year=1996|title=The Atlas of Economic Complexity by @HarvardCID|website=atlas.cid.harvard.edu|language=en|access-date=2018-11-16}} and among the top 15 pork producers in the world in 1996.{{Cite web|url=http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/?country=undefined&product=658&productClass=HS&startYear=undefined&target=Product&year=1996|title=The Atlas of Economic Complexity by @HarvardCID|website=atlas.cid.harvard.edu|access-date=2018-11-16}} During the outbreak, over 3.8 million swine were destroyed at a cost of US$6.9 billion (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|6.9|1997|r=1}} billion in {{Inflation/year|US}}). The Taiwanese pig industry was devastated as a result, and the export market was in ruins.US Department of Agriculture{{snd}}Foreign Animal Report 1998, p. 41 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fadrep.pdf {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070202192809/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fadrep.pdf |date=February 2, 2007 }}

In 2007, Taiwan was considered free of FMD, but was still conducting a vaccination program, which restricts the export of meat from Taiwan.

{{main|2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak}}

The epidemic of FMD in the United Kingdom in the spring and summer of 2001 was caused by the "Type O pan Asia" strain of the disease.{{cite web |url=http://copus.org.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=1252 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070620181240/http://copus.org.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=1252 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2007-06-20 |title=What is foot and mouth disease? |publisher=Copus.org.uk |access-date=2011-01-15 }} This episode resulted in more than 2,000 cases of the disease in farms throughout the British countryside. More than six million sheep and cattle were killed in an eventually successful attempt to halt the disease. The county of Cumbria was the most seriously affected area of the country, with 843 cases. By the time the disease was halted in October 2001, the crisis was estimated to have cost Britain £8 billion (equivalent to £{{Inflation|UK|8|2001}} billion in {{Inflation/year|UK}}){{cite journal |pmc=3989032|year=2013|last1=Knight-Jones|first1=T. J.|title=The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease – What are they, how big are they and where do they occur?|journal=Preventive Veterinary Medicine|volume=112|issue=3–4|pages=161–173|last2=Rushton|first2=J|doi=10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013|pmid=23958457}} to the agricultural and support industries, and to the outdoor industry. What made this outbreak so serious was the amount of time between infection being present at the first outbreak locus, and when countermeasures were put into operation against the disease, such as transport bans and detergent washing of both vehicles and personnel entering livestock areas. The epidemic was probably caused by pigs that had been fed infected rubbish that had not been properly heat-sterilized. Further, the rubbish is believed to have contained remains of infected meat that had been illegally imported to Britain.{{Cite web |url=http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/fmd/documents/fmdorigins1.pdf |title=Origin of the UK Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic 2001 |department= Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120426015247/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/fmd/documents/fmdorigins1.pdf |archive-date=26 April 2012}}

In April 2005, an Asia-1 strain of FMD appeared in the eastern provinces of Shandong and Jiangsu. During April and May, it spread to suburban Beijing, the northern province of Hebei, and the Xinjiang autonomous region in northwest China. On 13 May, China reported the FMD outbreak to the World Health Organization and the OIE. This was the first time China has publicly admitted to having FMD.[https://archive.today/20130222021048/http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2122&language=1 Jia Hepeng, China confirms bird flu and foot-and-mouth outbreaks]{{cite web |url=http://russian.china.org.cn/english/2006/Jan/155354.htm |title=Foot-and-mouth Outbreaks Confirmed – china.org.cn |publisher=Russian.china.org.cn |date=2006-01-17 |access-date=2011-01-15 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724024037/http://russian.china.org.cn/english/2006/Jan/155354.htm |archive-date=2011-07-24 }} China is still reporting FMD outbreaks. In 2007, reports filed with the OIE documented new or ongoing outbreaks in the provinces of Gansu, Qinghai and Xinjiang. This included reports of domestic yak showing signs of infection.{{cite web |url=http://www.oie.int/wahid-prod/public.php?page=event_summary&this_country_code=CHN&reportid=4577&PHPSESSID=3674fad88e5b738a2b7d7ca937ad16dc |title=WAHID Interface – OIE World Animal Health Information Database |publisher=Oie.int |access-date=2011-01-15 }}{{dead link|date=May 2018 |bot=SheriffIsInTown |fix-attempted=yes }} FMD is endemic in pastoral regions of China from Heilongjiang Province in the northeast to Sichuan Province and the Tibetan Autonomous region in the southwest. Chinese domestic media reports often use a euphemism "Disease Number Five" (五号病 wǔhàobìng) rather than FMD in reports because of the sensitivity of the FMD issue. In March 2010, Southern Rural News (Nanfang Nongcunbao), in an article "Breaking the Hoof and Mouth Disease Taboo", noted that FMD has long been covered up in China by referring to it that way.{{cite web |url=http://www.xumuren.cn/viewnews-81823.html |title=Breaking the Hoof and Mouth Disease Taboo – A Milestone in the March 5, 2010 issue of Nanfang Nongcunbao |publisher=Xumuren.cn |access-date=2011-01-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707051847/http://www.xumuren.cn/viewnews-81823.html |archive-date=July 7, 2011 }} FMD is also called canker (口疮, literally "mouth ulcers" kǒuchuāng) or hoof jaundice (蹄癀 tíhuáng) in China, so information on FMD in China can be found online using those words as search terms.{{cite web |url=http://ks.cn.yahoo.com/question/1406031400773.html |title=Yahoo Question and Answers FMD in Chinese |publisher=Ks.cn.yahoo.com |date=2006-03-14 |access-date=2011-01-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721150146/http://ks.cn.yahoo.com/question/1406031400773.html |archive-date=2011-07-21 }} One can find online many provincial orders and regulations on FMD control antedating China's acknowledgment that the disease existed in China, for example Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region 1991 regulation on preventing the spread of Disease No.5.{{cite web |url=http://www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=22056 |title=Regulations of the Guangzi Zhuang Autonomous Region on the Prevention of the Spread of Disease Number 5 dated October 1991 as copied on the "Law Library" website |publisher=Law-lib.com |date=1991-10-24 |access-date=2011-01-15 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929143047/http://www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=22056 |archive-date=2011-09-29 }}

{{main|2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak}}

An infection of FMD in the United Kingdom was confirmed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 3 August 2007, on farmland located in Normandy, Surrey.{{cite news|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/animal-0803.htm |title=Foot and Mouth Disease confirmed in cattle, in Surrey |publisher=DEFRA |date=2007-08-03 |access-date=2007-08-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070819140757/http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/animal-0803.htm |archive-date=2007-08-19 |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6931395.stm|title= Further farms tested for disease |work=BBC News |date=2007-08-04|access-date = 2007-08-04}} All livestock in the vicinity were culled on 4 August. A nationwide ban on the movement of cattle and pigs was imposed, with a 3-km (1.9-mi) protection zone placed around the outbreak sites and the nearby virus research and vaccine production establishments, together with a 10-km (6.2-mi) increased surveillance zone.{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/04/ndefra1104.xml|title=Foot and mouth: new possible cases reported|author=Miles Goslett|newspaper=The Daily Telegraph|date=2007-08-03|access-date=2007-08-04|location=London|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080321095817/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2007%2F08%2F04%2Fndefra1104.xml|archive-date=2008-03-21}}

On 4 August, the strain of the virus was identified as a "01 BFS67-like" virus, one linked to vaccines and not normally found in animals, and isolated in the 1967 outbreak.{{cite news|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070804a.htm |title=Results of Foot and Mouth Disease Strain in Surrey, extension of zones |publisher=DEFRA |date=2007-08-04 |access-date=2007-08-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000734/http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070804a.htm |archive-date=2007-09-27 |url-status=dead }} The same strain was used at the nearby Institute for Animal Health and Merial Animal Health Ltd at Pirbright, {{convert|2.5|mi|km}} away, which is an American/French-owned BSL-4 vaccine manufacturing facility, and was identified as the likely source of infection.{{cite report|url=https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/archive/07aug/finalreport.pdf|title=Final report on potential breaches of biosecurity at the Pirbright site 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080727014838/https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/archive/07aug/finalreport.pdf|archive-date=2008-07-27}}

On 12 September, a new outbreak of the disease was confirmed in Egham, Surrey, {{convert|19|km|mi|abbr=on}} from the original outbreak,[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992466.stm "'Pirbright link' to farm outbreak"]. BBC News. Dated 12 September 2007 with a second case being confirmed on a nearby farm on 14 September.{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6994782.stm|title=BBC News – UK – Outbreak at second farm confirmed|work=bbc.co.uk|date=2007-09-14}}

These outbreaks caused a cull of all at-risk animals in the area surrounding Egham, including two farms near the famous four-star hotel Great Fosters. These outbreaks also caused the closure of Windsor Great Park due to the park containing deer; the park remained closed for three months. On 19 September 2007, a suspected case of FMD was found in Solihull, where a temporary control zone was set up by Defra.

{{main|2010 Japan foot-and-mouth outbreak|2010–2011 South Korea foot-and-mouth outbreak}}

In April 2010, a report of three incursions of FMD in Japan and South Korea led the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to issue a call for increased global surveillance. Japan veterinary authorities confirmed an outbreak of type O FMD virus, currently more common in Asian countries where FMD is endemic.

South Korea was hit by the rarer type A FMD in January, and then the type O infection in April.[https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34509&Cr=outbreak&Cr1= "UN agency warns of increased foot-and-mouth threats after outbreaks in Asia"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170701120830/http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34509&Cr=outbreak&Cr1= |date=2017-07-01 }} UN News Centre The most serious case of foot-and-mouth outbreak in South Korea's history started in November 2010 in pig farms in Andong city of Gyeongsangbuk-do, and has since spread in the country rapidly.{{cite news | title=Foot-and-Mouth Disease Roils Korean Farms | url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703791904576075341212752096 | work=The Wall Street Journal | date=2011-01-11 | first1=Evan | last1=Ramstad | first2=Jaeyeon | last2=Woo | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709183228/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703791904576075341212752096 | archive-date=2017-07-09 }}{{cite news | title=South Korea Reportedly Buries 1.4 Million Pigs Alive To Combat Foot And Mouth Disease | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/south-korea-buries-pigs-alive_n_808119.html | work=The Huffington Post | date=2011-01-12 | first=Curtis | last=Wong | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110119004759/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/south-korea-buries-pigs-alive_n_808119.html | archive-date=2011-01-19 }} More than 100 cases of the disease have been confirmed in the country so far, and in January 2011, South Korean officials started a mass cull of approximately 12%, or around three million in total, of the entire domestic pig population, and 107,000 of three million cattle of the country to halt the outbreak.

According to the report based on complete 1D gene sequences, Korean serotype A virus was linked with those from Laos. Korean serotype O viruses were divided into three clades and were closely related to isolates from Japan, Thailand, the UK, France, Ireland, South Africa, and Singapore, as well as Laos.{{cite journal | last1 = Yoon | first1 = SH | year = 2011 | title = Molecular epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease virus serotypes A and O with emphasis on Korea isolates: temporal and spatial dynamics | journal = Arch Virol | volume = 156 | issue = 5| pages = 817–826 | doi=10.1007/s00705-011-0921-3 | pmid = 21279395 | s2cid = 20574992 | doi-access = free }}

On 10 February 2011, North Korea reported an outbreak affecting pigs in the region around Pyongyang, by then ongoing since at least December 2010. Efforts to control the outbreak were hampered by illicit sales of infected meat.{{cite web|title=Pork Prices Rising with FMD Meat on Sale|url=http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01500&num=7488|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110324163637/http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01500&num=7488|archive-date=2011-03-24|date=2011-03-22}}

After being eradicated there in 1986, FMD was again detected in Indonesia in May 2022. The Australian government has offered its assistance but remains unconcerned, considering the risk to the country's biosecurity to be low. The Department of Agriculture (DAWE) is the responsible body and has been monitoring the situation. DAWE has determined there is only a low risk and has stockpiled vaccines since 2004 anyhow.{{cite web | title=Media statement: Foot and mouth disease detected in Indonesia | website=Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment | date=2022-05-09 | url=http://www.awe.gov.au/about/news/media-releases/media-statement-foot-and-mouth-disease-detected-indonesia | access-date=2022-05-16}}{{cite web | title=Foot-and-mouth disease | website=Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment | date=2022-05-16 | url=http://www.awe.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/pests-diseases-weeds/animal/fmd | access-date=2022-05-16}}

In response to the Indonesian outbreak, Australian authorities began checking parcels and baggage from Indonesia and China. Disinfectant floormats were also installed at Australian airports to clean footwear. The Albanese Government rejected calls by opposition parties to close the border to travel from Indonesia. In addition, New Zealand authorities have banned travellers from Indonesia from bringing meat products, have screened baggage from Indonesia, and installed floor mats. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Biosecurity Minister Damien O'Connor have expressed concern about the impact of foot and mouth disease on New Zealand's substantial cattle, sheep and pig populations as well as wildlife.{{cite news |title=Indonesia foot and mouth outbreak among its livestock prompts New Zealand and Australia restrictions |url=https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2022/07/25/indonesia-foot-and-mouth-outbreak-among-its-livestock-prompts-new-zealand-and-australia-restrictions |access-date=27 July 2022 |work=The Star |agency=Agence France-Presse |date=25 July 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220727123620/https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2022/07/25/indonesia-foot-and-mouth-outbreak-among-its-livestock-prompts-new-zealand-and-australia-restrictions|archive-date=27 July 2022|url-status=live}}

In January 2025, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was reported in a herd of water buffalo near Berlin. A 3 kilometre exclusion zone and a 10 kilometre monitoring zone were imposed, and after four days no further cases had been detected within 1 kilometre of the original case.{{cite news |title=German authorities say no more foot-and-mouth disease cases found |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/german-authorities-say-no-more-foot-and-mouth-disease-cases-found |access-date=14 January 2025 |work=www.straitstimes.com |date=14 January 2025}}{{cite news |title=Germany confirms first case of foot-and-mouth disease in nearly 40 years |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/germany-confirms-first-case-foot-and-mouth-disease-nearly-40-years-2025-01-10/ |access-date=14 January 2025 |work=www.reuters.com |date=2025-01-10}}

On March 8th, 2025, a confirmed case of foot-and-mouth disease was reported at a cattle farm in Kisbajcs, located in the northwestern corner of Hungary, the first such case in 50 years. Immediate counter-measures were made to mitigate the spread of the disease, including the liquidation of all 1400 animals in the affected herd and the burial of their carcasses.{{Cite web |date=2025-03-07 |title=Hungary detects first case of foot-and-mouth disease in 50 years |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-detects-first-case-of-foot-and-mouth-disease-in-50-years/ |access-date=2025-03-10 |website=POLITICO |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |title=Megjelent a ragadós száj- és körömfájás betegség Magyarországon - Nébih |trans-title=Foot-and-mouth disease discovered in Hungary - Nébih |url=https://portal.nebih.gov.hu/-/megjelent-a-ragados-szaj-es-koromfajas-betegseg-magyarorszagon |access-date=2025-03-10 |website=portal.nebih.gov.hu |publisher=National Food Chain Safety Office |language=hu}} The government of the United Kingdom subsequently banned all imports of cattle, sheep, pigs and deer, as well as banning travellers from bringing meat and dairy products with them, from both Hungary and neighbouring Slovakia due to the farm's proximity to the country's border.{{Cite web |date=2025-03-07 |title=Import ban of cattle, pigs, sheep and deer from Hungary and Slovakia to protect farmers after foot and mouth case |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/import-ban-of-cattle-pigs-sheep-and-deer-from-hungary-and-slovakia-to-protect-farmers-after-foot-and-mouth-case |access-date=2025-03-10 |website=GOV.UK |language=en}} As of March 10th, 2025, the eradication of the disease was still in progress. On March 21st, 2025, the foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed to cross the Hungarian-Slovak border with three cattle farms in villages Medveďov, Ňárad and Baka in Dunajská Streda district having the cases of the disease.{{Cite web |title=News digest: Slovakia confirms foot-and-mouth disease, begins culling livestock |url=https://spectator.sme.sk/politics-and-society/c/news-digest-slovakia-confirms-foot-and-mouth-disease-begins-culling-livestock |access-date=2025-03-27 |website=slovakspectator.sme.sk |publisher=SME |language=en}} The Fourth Slovak farm with infected cattle confirmed was in village Lúč na Ostrove on March 25, with another source of the disease confirmed in Hungarian village Levél on March 26. A Fifth infected farm in Slovakia was confirmed on March 30 in Plavecký Štvrtok.{{Cite web |title=Foot-and-mouth outbreak hits major Slovak cattle farm near Austrian and Czech borders|url=https://spectator.sme.sk/business/c/foot-and-mouth-disease-spreads-to-western-slovakia-near-austria-and-czechia |access-date=2025-03-30 |website=slovakspectator.sme.sk |publisher=SME |language=en}} Both countries started with strict border controls, including stopping of traffic on several border crossings. All Slovak zoological gardens were closed temporarily.{{Cite web |title=News digest: Foot-and-mouth outbreak leaves Bratislava Zoo in financial trouble |url=https://spectator.sme.sk/politics-and-society/c/bratislava-zoo-in-dire-situation-over-revenue-shortfall-due-to-foot-and-mouth-disease |access-date=2025-03-27 |website=slovakspectator.sme.sk |publisher=SME |language=en}}

The cause of FMD was first shown to be viral in 1897 by Friedrich Loeffler. He passed the blood of an infected animal through a Chamberland filter and found the collected fluid could still cause the disease in healthy animals.

File:13567 2013 Article 316 Fig2 HTML.webp

FMD occurs throughout much of the world, and while some countries have been free of FMD for some time, its wide host range and rapid spread represent cause for international concern. After World War II, the disease was widely distributed throughout the world. In 1996, endemic areas included Asia, Africa, and parts of South America; as of August 2007, Chile is disease-free,{{cite report|title=Foot and Mouth Disease |publisher=Washington State Department of Health |date=March 2002 |url=http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/zoo/foot-and-mouth-disease.pdf |access-date=2007-08-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070710084841/http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/zoo/foot-and-mouth-disease.pdf |archive-date=2007-07-10 |url-status=dead }} and Uruguay and Argentina have not had an outbreak since 2001. In May 2014, the FAO informed that Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru were "just one step away" from eradication;{{cite web|url=http://www.pig333.com/latest_swine_news/fao-andean-countries-short-of-eradicating-the-foot-and-mouth-disease_8719/|title=Latest swine news : FAO: Andean countries short of eradicating the foot-and-mouth disease – pig333, pig to pork community|work=pig333.com|date=22 May 2014 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714154307/http://www.pig333.com/latest_swine_news/fao-andean-countries-short-of-eradicating-the-foot-and-mouth-disease_8719/|archive-date=2014-07-14}} North America and Australia have been free of FMD for many years. New Zealand has never had a case of foot-and-mouth disease.{{cite web |url=http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/surv-mgmt/surv/freedom |title=official government press release, New Zealand's Freedom From Foot-And-Mouth Disease, Biosecurity New Zealand |publisher=Biosecurity.govt.nz |access-date=2011-01-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101229023648/http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/surv-mgmt/surv/freedom |archive-date=2010-12-29 }} Most European countries have been recognized as disease-free, and countries belonging to the European Union have stopped FMD vaccination.

However, in 2001, a serious outbreak of FMD in Britain resulted in the slaughter of many animals, the postponing of the general election for a month, and the cancellation of many sporting events and leisure activities, such as the Isle of Man TT. Due to strict government policies on sale of livestock, disinfection of all persons leaving and entering farms, and the cancellation of large events likely to be attended by farmers, a potentially economically disastrous epizootic was avoided in Ireland,{{Citation needed|date=October 2007}} with just one case recorded in Proleek, County Louth. As one result, the Animal Health Act 2002 was designed by Parliament to provide the regulators with more powers to deal with FMD.{{cite web |title=Disease factsheet: Newcastle disease |url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/newcastle/index.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070610015401/http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/newcastle/index.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=10 June 2007 |publisher=DEFRA |date=30 April 2007}}{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Aw1fBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT494|title=Black's Veterinary Dictionary|isbn=9781408149553|date=2015|last1=Boden|first1=Edward|last2=Andrews|first2=Anthony|publisher=Bloomsbury }}

In August 2007, FMD was found at two farms in Surrey, England. All livestock were culled and a quarantine erected over the area. Two other suspected outbreaks have occurred since, although these seem now not to be related to FMD. The only reported case in 2010 was a false alarm from GIS Alex Baker, as proven false by the Florida Farm and Agricultural Department, and quarantine/slaughter of cattle and pigs was confirmed from Miyazaki Prefecture in Japan in June after three cows tested positive. Some 270,000 cattle have been ordered slaughtered following the disease's outbreak.

In 2022, the disease was once again seen in cattle in Indonesia. Other countries are worried that it might spread to their countries soon.{{cite web | url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-05/calls-for-stricter-border-measures-amid-foot-and/13960132 | title=Calls for stricter border measures amid foot-and-mouth outbreak in Bali | website=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date=5 July 2022 }}

Great Britain's response to the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease was a controversial policy of culling all animals within 3 km of an infected farm within 48 hours, leading to the slaughter of over 4 million animals.{{cite web |url=http://www.fmd.brass.cf.ac.uk/FMDthstampingout.html |title=The UK Foot and Mouth Epidemic of 2001: A Research Resource |publisher=Fmd.brass.cf.ac.uk |access-date=2011-01-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515140230/http://www.fmd.brass.cf.ac.uk/FMDthstampingout.html |archive-date=2011-05-15 }} This was stated to be "a response to a desperate situation, not a pre-meditated response to a known, assessed risk".{{cite web |title=The Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmenvfru/323/32305.htm |access-date=May 4, 2024 |publisher=UK Parliament}} FMD is usually nonfatal to adult animals. Pigs are capable of airborne transmission of the virus in one extreme case 250 km across the English Channel, although not usually more than 10 km. There are no known cases of cattle or sheep spreading the virus beyond 3 km.{{cite web|url=http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/fmdfie/plan/plan-1e.shtml |title=Foot-and-Mouth Disease |publisher=Canadian Food Inspection Agency |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070911130953/http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/fmdfie/plan/plan-1e.shtml |archive-date=September 11, 2007 |url-status=dead}} The 2007 outbreak was caught much earlier, and was able to be contained after culling only 1,578 animals.{{Cite journal | pmid = 20080480| year = 2010| last1 = Arzt| first1 = J| title = Agricultural diseases on the move early in the third millennium| journal = Veterinary Pathology| volume = 47| issue = 1| pages = 15–27| last2 = White| first2 = W. R.| last3 = Thomsen| first3 = B. V.| last4 = Brown| first4 = C. C.| doi = 10.1177/0300985809354350| s2cid = 31753926}}

For the farmer, culling animals often results in financial devastation with no ability to honor existing contractual arrangements, thus facing the prospective loss of farm, equipment, and future earning potential. Farmers, especially in more traditional systems, may also have emotional attachments to some of the animals. On the ethical side, one must also consider that FMD is a painful disease for the affected animals. The vesicles and blisters are painful in themselves, and restrict both eating and movement. Through ruptured blisters, the animal is also at risk from secondary bacterial infections. Production loss and vaccination in areas where the disease is endemic costs and estimated US$6.5 billion to 21 billion yearly, and controlling outbreaks in countries normally free of it costs and additional >US$1.5 billion per year. This cost is disproportionately borne by some of the poorest countries in the world.{{Cite journal |last1=Knight-Jones |first1=T. J. D. |last2=Rushton |first2=J. |date=2013-11-01 |title=The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease – What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? |journal=Preventive Veterinary Medicine |language=en |volume=112 |issue=3 |pages=161–173 |doi=10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013 |pmid=23958457 |pmc=3989032 |issn=0167-5877}} Controlling the virus with vaccines is difficult because there are multiple serotypes of the virus which require distinct vaccines. When an outbreak occurs, the virus must be analyzed before the correct vaccine can be identified. Research is ongoing to improve vaccination technology.

{{Portal|Viruses}}

• Animal virology
• Hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD)
• Swine vesicular disease (SVD)
• Blain, an archaic disease of uncertain etiology

{{Reflist}}

{{Medical resources

| DiseasesDB = 31707

| ICD10 = {{ICD10|B|08|8|b|00}} (ILDS B08.820)

| ICD9 = {{ICD9|078.4}}

| ICDO =

| OMIM =

| MedlinePlus =

| eMedicineSubj =

| eMedicineTopic =

| MeshID = D005536

}}

{{commons category|Foot-and-mouth disease}}

• [http://www.actavetscand.com/content/56/1/42 FMD Myocarditis in Pigs]
• {{Cite journal | doi = 10.1111/tbed.12235| pmid = 24943477| title = Detection of Foot-and-mouth Disease Virus RNA and Capsid Protein in Lymphoid Tissues of Convalescent Pigs Does Not Indicate Existence of a Carrier State| journal = Transboundary and Emerging Diseases| volume = 63| issue = 2| pages = 152–164| year = 2014| last1 = Stenfeldt | first1 = C.| last2 = Pacheco | first2 = J. M.| last3 = Smoliga | first3 = G. R.| last4 = Bishop | first4 = E.| last5 = Pauszek | first5 = S. J.| last6 = Hartwig | first6 = E. J.| last7 = Rodriguez | first7 = L. L.| last8 = Arzt | first8 = J.}}
• [http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/biosecurity/ag-biosec/anim-disease/foot-mouth.html Foot-and-Mouth Disease] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520192636/http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/biosecurity/ag-biosec/anim-disease/foot-mouth.html |date=2013-05-20 }} 12-part comprehensive overview from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
• [http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/fmd-portal/ FMD portal]
• [https://archive.today/20121209040809/http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/08/06/105708/foot-and-mouth-disease-farmers-weekly-interactives-special-report-on-the-outbreak-at-surrey.html 2007 Outbreak Foot and Mouth Disease Timeline]
• {{cite journal |vauthors=Armstrong R, Davie J, Hedger RS |title=Foot-and-mouth disease in man |journal=Br Med J |volume=4 |issue=5578 |pages=529–30 |year=1967 |pmid=4294412 |pmc=1749100 |doi= 10.1136/bmj.4.5578.529}}
• [http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/Diseasehome Current status of Foot and Mouth Disease worldwide] at OIE. WAHID Interface—OIE World Animal Health Information Database
• [http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/technical-disease-cards/ Disease card] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141010141239/http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/technical-disease-cards/ |date=2014-10-10 }}
• [http://www.fao.org/eufmd The European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EuFMD)]
• [https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/profile/foot-and-mouth-disease Species Profile – Foot and Mouth Disease], National Invasive Species Information Center, United States National Agricultural Library.

{{Viral cutaneous conditions}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Foot-And-Mouth Disease}}

*

Category:Animal viral diseases

Category:Bovine diseases

Category:Sheep and goat diseases

Category:Infectious diseases with eradication efforts

Category:Health disasters

Category:Food safety in the European Union

Category:History of agriculture in the United Kingdom

Category:Agricultural health and safety

Category:Food law

Category:Biological anti-agriculture weapons