Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease affecting cloven-hoofed animals like cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, causing significant economic losses through reduced productivity, trade restrictions, and control costs. Non-compliance by farmers and agents—such as failing to report outbreaks, ignoring biosecurity measures, or resisting vaccination and culling—exacerbates its spread. Below are solutions to address non-compliance, drawing on global insights and tailored to practical implementation:
-
Strengthened Biosecurity Enforcement and Education:Mandatory Biosecurity Protocols: Governments must enforce strict biosecurity measures, such as restricting animal movement, disinfecting equipment, and limiting farm access. Non-compliant farmers should face penalties, like fines or loss of subsidies, to incentivize adherence. For example, the UK’s 2025 import bans on meat and dairy from affected EU countries emphasize biosecurity to prevent FMD incursions.Education Campaigns: Many farmers may not comply due to lack of awareness or mistrust. Public outreach, like radio broadcasts or mobile veterinary units (as used in Mexico during the 1940s FMD eradication), can inform farmers about FMD’s impact and the importance of compliance. Engaging local leaders and cooperatives can build trust.Incentives for Compliance: Offer financial incentives, such as compensation for culled animals (e.g., Mexico’s 1950s program) or subsidies for biosecurity upgrades, to encourage adherence. The USDA’s 90% compensation for bird flu-related milk losses in 2024 shows how incentives can motivate cooperation.Enhanced Surveillance and Rapid Response:Decentralized Diagnostics: Deploy portable diagnostic tools, like chromatographic strip tests, to detect FMD on farms within 20 minutes, reducing reliance on distant labs and enabling faster reporting.Mandatory Reporting: Enforce immediate reporting of suspected cases through legal mandates, with anonymous hotlines to reduce fear of repercussions. The FAO recommends awareness-raising among farmers to ensure prompt reporting.Regional Coordination: Establish cross-border surveillance networks, as FMD spreads easily across regions. The Global Foot and Mouth Disease Research Alliance (GFRA) facilitates such collaboration, which can pressure non-compliant regions to align with standards.
-
Vaccination Strategies and Alternatives:Targeted Vaccination: In endemic areas, vaccination is critical but often resisted due to cost or trade concerns. Subsidized vaccines and clear communication about their safety (e.g., no reversion to virulence) can boost uptake.Non-Infectious Vaccines: Research into subunit or peptide vaccines, like those tested in China, can reduce risks associated with live vaccines, making them more acceptable to farmers.Antiviral Therapies: Emerging antiviral drugs targeting FMDV replication could provide an alternative to culling, reducing resistance from farmers emotionally or financially attached to their livestock.
-
Addressing Externalities and Non-Compliance:Public Goods Approach: FMD control generates public benefits (e.g., market access, food security), but one farmer’s non-compliance can harm others. Governments must treat FMD control as a public good, funding coordinated efforts and penalizing free-riders.Community-Based Monitoring: Empower local farming communities to monitor compliance, as peer pressure can deter non-compliance more effectively than top-down enforcement.
-
Learning from Past Outbreaks:The UK’s 2001 FMD outbreak, costing £8 billion, showed that non-compliance (e.g., illegal animal movement) delays containment. Strict movement bans and public-private partnerships reduced spread in subsequent outbreaks (2007, 2025).Indonesia’s 2022 outbreak highlighted challenges with non-unified livestock sectors and poor vaccination rollout, suggesting that centralized coordination and trained personnel are critical.
Bird Flu Losses and Recurrence
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), or bird flu, has caused significant losses in poultry and, recently, dairy sectors. Since February 2022, 97.2 million birds in U.S. flocks have died from H5N1 or related culling, with peaks of 8.8 million in April 2024 and 5.9 million in May 2024. In 2025, H5N1 spread to dairy cattle, affecting 132 herds across 12 U.S. states, with three human cases reported. New Zealand confirmed an H7N6 outbreak in December 2024. The recurrence of bird flu outbreaks is driven by its global circulation in wild birds and mammals, making eradication challenging.
How Many Times Must Losses Occur?
-
No Fixed Threshold: Bird flu outbreaks will persist as long as wild bird reservoirs and intensive farming systems exist. The FAO notes H5N1’s “unprecedented” global spread, with hundreds of millions of birds culled since 2022. Losses will recur unless systemic changes are implemented.
-
Mitigation Strategies:Biosecurity: Farmers must isolate flocks, use PPE, and quarantine new birds for 30 days. New Zealand’s MPI emphasizes foot baths and visitor restrictions.Surveillance: Voluntary testing (e.g., U.S. milk tank testing) and rapid reporting (e.g., New Zealand’s hotline) can catch outbreaks early.Compensation: USDA’s 90% compensation for milk losses and up to $28,000 for biosecurity upgrades encourage farmer participation.Research: FDA studies confirm pasteurization inactivates H5N1 in milk, ensuring food safety, while ongoing research into vaccines and disposal methods could reduce losses.
-
Long-Term Outlook: Without global wildlife reservoir control or a universal avian flu vaccine, annual or seasonal outbreaks are likely, especially in spring (e.g., April-May 2024 peaks). Intensive farming amplifies risks, as seen in Indonesia’s poultry overpopulation. Losses will continue until biosecurity, surveillance, and international cooperation improve significantly.
Critical Perspective: The establishment narrative often emphasizes culling and vaccination but overlooks structural issues like factory farming’s role in disease amplification. Non-compliance in FMD often stems from economic desperation or distrust, which heavy-handed policies can worsen. For bird flu, reliance on culling and trade bans ignores ecological factors like wild bird migration. A holistic approach—combining incentives, education, and ecological management—would be more effective than punitive measures alone.
Conclusion: For FMD, addressing non-compliance requires enforced biosecurity, education, incentives, and advanced diagnostics, with community and international coordination to manage externalities. Bird flu losses will recur due to its global presence, necessitating robust biosecurity, surveillance, and research. Both diseases highlight the need for systemic changes in farming practices and global cooperation to minimize economic and food security impacts.
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by CRA and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
