Defra's News releases - http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/index.htm
Cumbria Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry - One of the three County Council FMD Inquiries, chaired by Professor Phil Thomas. Report released September 2002. Site contains the full 120 page report, including the recommendations. Devon Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry - One of the three County Council FMD Inquiries, chaired by Professor Ian Mercer CBE. Report released January 2002. Site contains the full 100 page report, including the recommendations. Northumberland Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry - One of the three County Council FMD Inquiries, chaired by Professor Michael Dower. Report released February 2002. Site contains the full report, including the recommendations. Policy Commission On The Future Of Farming And Food - Announced 9 August 2001. Final report issued on 29 January 2002 as one of the three FMD Inquiries. Includes meetings, responses and the report. Royal Society Inquiry into Infectious Diseases in Livestock - Announced 9 August 2001 as one of the three FMD Inquiries. Chaired by Sir Brian Follett FRS. Summary Report released July 2002. Includes progress reports, commissioned papers and evidence.
Foot and mouth disease: facing the new dilemmaswith Introduction by Gavin Thomson. The series is now available online (summaries and pdf files
During the 69th General Session of the OIE in May 2001, the consternation caused by the dramatic upsurge in the occurrence of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in Europe particularly, but also in South America, east Asia and southern Africa was the subject of much debate. Questioning the traditional approaches to the control/eradication of the disease and especially the justification for 'stamping-out' which had been documented in all its horror by the media in the United Kingdom was the popular topic. This concern was so intense that many drawn into the debate had little knowledge of the nature of FMD or of the behaviour of the disease and there was an understandable search for a readily available and authoritative source of such information. This special edition is primarily an attempt to respond to this need and provide an up-to-date source of information for both animal health specialists and others seeking a compendium of information on the subject....The Index and overview is available at http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/A_rt21_3.htm
...sections include both papers intended to provide basic information as well as papers covering 'topical' problems such as vaccination and its effects on international trade, 'carriers' and their role in the epidemiology of the disease and the environmental implications of 'stamping-out'. Some opinions differ from the official position of the OIE as exemplified by the present edition of the International Animal Health Code but this is considered healthy if we are to improve management of this disease internationally. The only restriction placed on authors has been insistence that their arguments are based on the existing scientific information, limited as this may be. In some cases, this has resulted in disagreement on the interpretation of such information.
Proposal to Use Orally Administered Interferon to Prevent and/or Treat Foot-and-Mouth Disease - pdf
- Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. Prepared by Joseph Cummins, Steven Krakowka and David Hutcheson - September 2003
SUMMARY. Scientists at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) on Plum Island have shown that the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus is sensitive to the antiviral and immune modulatory effects of interferon alpha (IFN"). This proposal seeks to exploit the exquisite sensitivity of FMD virus to IFN". When added to rations fed to animals, IFN" may suppress FMD virus replication, eliminate or reduce virus shedding and transmission, and thus maintain commercial viability of the animals.
... Human IFN" (HuIFN") is safe and effective when given orally to dogs, swine, cattle, cats, horses, poultry and humans. The ease of oral delivery and low cost of low-dose HuIFN" makes its use as an immune modulator a safe and economically viable alternative to depopulation of animals during an FMD outbreak.
... HuIFN" can be stabilized and fed in the daily ration thereby simplifying delivery....
........ This proposal offers an alternative to the depopulation of millions of animals in the face of a multi-centered FMD outbreak. The impact of a bioterrorist attack upon our animal protein food supply and our response by depopulating livestock will result in billions of dollars in lost revenue and put thousands of Americans out of work. The oral use of HuIFN", with or without FMD vaccination will minimize these national losses.
Unapparent foot and mouth disease infection (sub-clinical infections and carriers): implications for controlP. Sutmoller & R. Casas Olascoaga
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2002, 21 (3), 519-529 http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2103/2.0.Sutmoller.pdf
"....the paradigm 'free of FMD without vaccination' is not synonymous with 'risk-free'. The risk of introduction of sub-clinical FMD into FMD-free countries may increase significantly, with the occurrence of large susceptible animal populations, changed agricultural practices, expansion of trade in live animals and animal movements, increased trade in animal products and greater mobility of people. Such changes in circumstances require that national and international authorities remain continuously vigilant to determine any altered risk for importation of FMD.
A few historical reports and some recent observations in southern Africa indicate the possibility of dissemination of FMD by bovine carriers into herds of susceptible cattle. These reports have greatly influenced FMD trade policies and thus, FMD control and eradication strategies. However, other field evidence does not support this claim and several controlled experiments were unable to show that carriers are able to initiate disease. When millions of cattle were systematically vaccinated with good quality vaccines, FMD disappeared in spite of a large sentinel population in the form of calves and unvaccinated sheep and pigs. A low number of carriers most likely persisted, but they did not hamper the eradication of the disease.
Vaccination policies and trade regulation must be based on risk assessments taking these factors into consideration..."
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease
Pages 3-7 of Virus Research Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 1-161 (January 2003)
Fred Brown, Plum Island Animal Disease Center, USDA-ARS, Greenport, NY 11944, USA
".....A final illustration of the practical value of molecular studies is provided by the recent demonstration (Callahan et al., 2002) that an outbreak of the disease can be detected within a few hours by the amplification of genes from the viral RNA which are common to all seven serotypes of the virus but which do not occur in the other three viruses (vesicular stomatitis virus, vesicular exanthena of swine virus and swwine vesicular disease virus (Nardelli et al., 1968)) which cause signs similar to those caused by FMDV (Bradish et al., 1960). Such a test would allow infected animals to be slaughtered but would avoid the unnecessary slaughter of uninfected animals, an issue of great political sensitivity in the UK...
The arguments against vaccination, based on the assumption that vaccinated animals can become infected without showing signs of the disease, are spurious because the same is true for unvaccinated animals, as exemplified by sheep in the recent outbreak in the UK. This non-vaccination policy has been dominated by trading regulations which specify that vaccinated animals will not be accepted by countries which do not have the disease. It seems to be forgotten that the crucial issue is whether an animal has been infected. In any case there is little or no evidence that convalescent animals can pass the virus to other animals. Moreover, the highly sensitive methods which are available for detecting even as few as 10-/100 molecules of the virus would ensure that animals could be screened for the presence of virus. ..... There is no point in making the best vaccine in the world if it is not to be used."
The successful control and eradication of FMD in South America in 2001 (pdf)
Virus Research 91 (2003) 101-/144
Paul Sutmoller Animal Health Consultant, former chief of Laboratories of the Panamerican Foot and Mouth Disease Center PAHO/WHO, Brazil
Simon S. Barteling - Consultant Veterinary Vaccines, former Head Department FMD Vaccine Development, and Production ID-Lelystad and former Head Community Co-ordinating Institute (for the EU), The Netherlands
Raul Casas Olascoaga - Direct Advisor of the Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries, Uruguay, former Director of the Panamerican Foot and Mouth Disease Center PAHO/WHO, Brazil
Keith J. Sumption - Lecturer in International Animal Health, Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, Scotland, UK
"....We were struck by the fact that the measures used to prevent and control FMD were primarily based on agro-economic considerations and that authorities in charge were justifying their policies with doubtful scientific arguments. We heard veterinary authorities state 'To vaccinate means to live with the disease!' The public in general, including veterinary and agricultural communities, were misinformed by scientists and veterinary authorities and raised such basic questions as: 'Would meat from vaccinated animals be fit for consumption?'; 'Can sheep, goats and pigs be protected by vaccination?'; and, 'Does vaccination perpetuate FMD infection?'. We decided, therefore, that we should present the available scientific information as a guideline for future prevention, control and eradication of FMD..."
The 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom: animal welfare perspectives
S.M. Crispin, P.A. Roger, H. O'Hare & S.H. Binns
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2002, 21 (3), 877-883 pdf
"The management of the foot and mouth disease (FMD) epidemic which occurred in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 resulted in widespread animal welfare problems. These problems arose firstly because of the large numbers of animals slaughtered to bring the epidemic under control, which meant that the conditions under which animals were slaughtered and the manner in which this was carried out often breached regulations concerning welfare at slaughter.
Secondly, the restrictions imposed on movements, especially animal movements, resulted in what appeared to be readily avoidable difficulties with livestock dying from, for example, food shortages and pregnant animals giving birth under unsuitable conditions.
This brief review is based on the personal experiences of the authors as well as relevant observations and reports from a variety of sources....
....The Farm Animal Welfare Council has already produced a report on the animal welfare issues that were a cause for concern during the 2001 FMD epidemic (13). This report recommended that detailed strategies for killing in the field of animals of all species...
..The bureaucracy and understaffing of the State Veterinary Service precluded clear directions and unequivocal dissemination of information and this had deleterious effects on animal welfare. Apart from the time taken to obtain rulings on matters of welfare concern from the National Disease Emergency Control Centre in London, the inflexible licensing system exacerbated animal suffering. For example, animals were sometimes denied the opportunity of moving from heavily grazed pasture to a neighbouring field with fresh pasture, despite negligible risk of disease transmission. In a normal, non-emergency situation, these conditions would have led to prosecution under the Protection of Animals Act of 1911 (1) or the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1968 (2). A matter of great concern is that the licensing arrangements rarely left provision for veterinary risk assessment, especially when so many of the decisions that should have been taken required only a modicum of common sense and involved no risk of disease spread...."
The power to panic: the Animal Health Act 2002
pdf file - ( a little slow to load, but opens eventually in this window)
by Professor David Campbell and Professor Robert Lee This paper was first published as an analysis piece in the Autumn 2003 issue of Public Law,  P.L. 382
Extract: "Executive contempt for Parliament is such common contemporary currency that one would hardly dare trouble the readers of this journal by seeking to bring another example of it to their attention. However, the Animal Health Act 2002 ("2002 Act") 1 displays "an aura of arrogance" 2 in the way it persists with a discredited policy that will be found striking even by this case-hardened readership. During the foot and mouth disease (FMD) epidemic of 2001, the government engaged in ultra vires action on a huge scale, for it had no power to slaughter perhaps the majority of the 7 million 3 animals it nevertheless did slaughter in the course of the "contiguous cull" 4 which became the core of its disease control policy. 5 By passing the 2002 Act, the government has effectively acknowledged that this was so, for that Act seeks to make precisely that which was ultra vires in the past legal in the future, in complete disregard of the compelling reasons for the previous withholding of such powers...."
Use of Models in Disease Control Policy (Defra website)
A 98 page (pdf) report for DEFRA
by Nick Taylor of the Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit (VEERU)
26 May 2003
(Alan Beat's summary may be seen here)
Pirbright's FMD review 2003 for DEFRA
Produced by the Institute for Animal Health Pirbright
5 June 2003
37 page pdf report
Extract: "The possibility that vaccinated and subsequently challenged animals may be clinically protected but may nevertheless harbour live virus has important consequences for eradication strategies and regaining official virus-free status for international trade."
Identification of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus-Specific Linear B-Cell Epitopes To Differentiate between Infected and Vaccinated Cattle
Bettina-Judith Höhlich,1 Karl-Heinz Wiesmüller,2 Tobias Schlapp,3 Bernd Haas,1 Eberhard Pfaff,1 and Armin Saalmüller1*
JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, Aug. 2003, Received 10 February 2003/Accepted 21 May 2003
Extract: "....In further experiments, the reactivity of the six peptides with sera from animals infected with different strains of FMDV was tested, and strain-independent infection-specific epitopes were identified. Thus, these results clearly demonstrate the ability of a simple peptide-based assay to discriminate between infected and conventionally FMD-vaccinated animals."
Article in Nature (Aug 1 2003) about the the Höhlich, Wiesmüller, Schlapp, Haas, Pfaff, and Saalmüller paper above
1 August 2003 by Helen R. Pilcher
Extract: "...Similar kits exist, but Saalm|ller's version is quicker to use and costs one-fifth the price of its rivals. It uses synthetic reagents where others use biological components. "You don't need a high-security lab to do the analysis," says Saalmüller. .."
Regional status and approaches to control and eradication of foot and mouth disease in the Middle East and North Africa
Dr H.A. Aidaros, Chairman General Organisation for Veterinary Services, Egypt, Professor of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2002, 21 (3), 451-458 pdf
The situation in the Middle East and North Africa constitutes a threat to other regions of the world, especially Europe. ......to reduce future outbreaks of FMD in the countries of the two regions, a common strategic programme should be adopted, based on effective regional co-operation at many levels. This should be complemented by efforts to restructure and consolidate the national Veterinary Services.
Benefit-cost analysis of vaccination and preemptive slaughter (American Journal)
American Journal of VETERINARY RESEARCH Am.J.Vet.Res (Vol 64, No 7, p 805):
Thomas W. Bates, PhD; Tim E. Carpenter, PhD; Mark C. Thurmond, DVM, PhD
Extract: "Vaccination with a highly efficacious vaccine may be a cost-effective strategy for control of FMD if vaccinated animals are not subsequently slaughtered and there is no future adverse economic impact, such as trade restrictions. Although less preferable than the baseline eradication program, selective slaughter of highest-risk herds was preferable to other preemptive slaughter strategies."
'coherent and transparent plan still awaited' letter to Vet Record
Letter to The Veterinary Record 7th July 2003
Paul Roger BSc., MSc., BVetMed., DSHP., CertWEL., MRCVS
Extract:"There seems to be reluctance to use electronic identification systems (which could be linked with geographical information systems and thus locate all domestic animals within the EU). ...The DEFRA still have not attempted to validate rapid technologies available to identify the presence or absence of FMDV in herds or flocks. This is despite continual re-evaluation of these technologies in the field. ...A coherent and transparent plan for dealing with the next outbreak of FMD to occur in this country is still awaited."
Measuring prions causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy or chronic wasting disease by immunoassays and transgenic mice
Safar JG, Scott M, Monaghan J, Deering C, Didorenko S, Vergara J, Ball H, Legname G, Leclerc E, Solforosi L, Serban H, Groth D, Burton DR, Prusiner SB, Williamson RA.
Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0518, USA.
Published online: 21 October 2002, doi:10.1038/nbt748 November 2002 Volume 20 Number 11 pp 1147 - 1150
Abstract. Extract: "...Toward preventing new transmissions, diagnostic tests for prions in livestock have been developed using the conformation-dependent immunoassay (CDI), which simultaneously measures specific antibody binding to denatured and native forms of the prion protein (PrP). ...The CDI was able to discriminate between PrPSc from BSE-infected cattle and Tg(BoPrP) mice as well as from chronic wasting disease (CWD)-infected deer and elk. Our findings argue that applying the CDI to livestock should considerably reduce human exposure to animal prions."
Aphis USDA training pages with photos on recognising vesicular disease (new window)
" There are four vesicular diseases of domestic livestock:
- Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)
- vesicular stomatitis (vS)
- Swine vesicular disease (SvD)
- vesicular exanthema of swine (vES)
These four diseases will be considered in the tutorial on FMD because the lesion they have in common is a vesicle. Laboratory assistance is required for a differential diagnosis."
Crisis and Opportunity Devon Foot and Mouth Inquiry 2001 Final Report
The CVO's overview of FMD 2001
Revised EU FMD Directive
Emergency vaccination section from Revised EU FMD Directive
Animal Health Act 2002 - full text
NFMG response to DEFRA Contingency Plan
Impact assessment on EU's proposed changes to Sheep and Goat Identification
FMD: facing the new dilemmas - G.R. Thomson (ed.) OIE publication
Control and eradication of FMD by Sutmoller, Barteling, Olascoaga and Sumption. (pdf. )
Latest draft proposals EU FMD Directive
DEFRA "Risk Assessment" webpage
Open letters between Dr Barteling and Dr Donaldson
Culling versus vaccination: challenging a dogma in veterinary (FMD) science
European Parliament: Own-initiative Report on measures to control Foot and Mouth Disease in the European Union in 2001 and future measures to prevent and control animal diseases in the European Union - Temporary Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease (Rapporteur: Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER) Public Accounts Report into FMD
Defra's Memorandum Appendix 1 to above
OIE website - an important new scientific review of FMD
Responses to DEFRA's Contingency Plan
DEFRA TB control discussion paper
The Power to Panic(pdf) - Professors Lee and Campbell
DEFRA consultation on proposed EU Directive
Section 8 Vaccination - EU proposal
Annex X - criteria for vaccination
EU proposal FMD pdf
TSE's - by Dr S Haywood and Dr D Brown (Vet Times)
Badgers and Bovine TB - Dr Ruth Watkins
"Compassion for the health of farm animals in 2003" Dr Ruth Watkins
Final EU FMD report full version
Professor Bob Lee and Professor David Campbell Lessons Not Learned
Link to Phillips report
Lord May on AHB
Dr James Irvine on FMD vaccination Uruguay
Dr Ruth Watkins: recommendation to EU -summary
Additional material from Dr Watkins
The Drummond Report
Draft Programme for the Containment Control and Eradication of FMD
NSP "modification": Rare Breeds International response
International scrapie expert Dr Alan Dickinson
Marshall Plan for Stakeholders Meetings etc.
78% of clinically confirmed cases were not positive
Lessons Learned Report .pdf
RS Inquiry - sub text?
Warmwell webpage of full Royal Society summary
Dr Kitching's evidence to the EU
Accuracy of the Pirbright tests
Myth and Reality - Nicola Morris
USDA's Dr Roger Breeze on the Rapid Diagnosis machine - offered to and rejected by the UK (Royal Society report small print)
Royal Society Report
New evaluation of the modelling (Haywood)
Royal Society Edinburgh Report
"I accuse the Ministry of negligence"
Intervet Technical Paper
NFMG vaccination paper to RS
The reality of the pre-emptive cull
Defra's FMD contingency Plan (pdf)
Aujeszkys disease in pigs
European Livestock Alliance
Bioterrorism and the UK foot and mouth outbreak
National Audit Office report (.pdf)
John Crowther on a re interpretation of acceptable risks
New Test from Joint FAO/IAEA
2001 delays in slaughter times (PQ5479)
EFRA Committee FMD Report
Prof King's answers to Temporary Cttee
Professor King's "role of contiguous cull"
Vaccination in Uruguay facts
Vaccination in Uruguay (from embassy)
The 1968 Northumberland Report
Epp-ed European Committee site
Pirbright RS Submission
New OIE proposal on vaccination
"Points to consider in the prevention, control and eradication of FMD"(Brussels Conference)
Slaughter and Test figures requested - by County
Vaccination and Transmission (notes)
Alan Richardson Veterinary Times article
Important re scrapie: Northern Short-tailed Sheep Group/ RBI report
Northumberland Report (pdf or Word)
Vet Record May12 01
State Veterinary Journal, Volume 12, number 1, 2002 Foot and mouth disease special edition PB6573
TOP of menu