MEMO/01/123
Brussels, 12 December 2001
Questions and Answers on Foot-and-Mouth Disease
(FMD)
What is the current situation with regard to FMD outbreaks in the EU?
No new outbreak has occurred in the UK since 30 September 2001. Thus, the
disease has most likely been successfully eradicated again in the EU. Foot and
mouth disease (FMD) broke out in the UK in February this year. Further outbreaks
occurred also in Ireland, France and in the Netherlands. The eradication efforts
succeeded at a very heavy cost. Over 4 million animals were killed and destroyed
and there was serious disruption in the affected countries. Prior to this year, there
had been minor outbreaks only notably in the eastern parts of Greece close to the
Turkish border in 1994, 1996 and 2000 and in Italy in 1993. Being free from major
infectious and contagious diseases is not only the optimal health status for animals
contributing to their wellbeing and good veterinarian practice, but also of vital
economic importance.
Ireland, France and the Netherlands have officially regained their disease-free status
at the meeting of the FMD and other Epizootics Commission of the OIE on 17-19
September 2001.
What are the European Commission and the national authorities doing
to combat FMD?
All Member States invested huge resources in combating the recent outbreak and
remain vigilant. There was and is a very high level of solidarity and co-operation
between Member States in these difficult circumstances.
The Commission’s objective has been to act decisively and quickly to help the
Member States to eradicate foot and mouth disease. There are no less than 57
decisions on protective measures adopted by the Commission to date, in close coordination and co-operation with the Member States, mainly on restriction of
movements of animals. The Commission acted immediately on receipt of new
information and with as much transparency as possible.
The initially adopted restrictions on the dispatch from Great Britain of live susceptible
animals and untreated products from such animals have been eased in the light of
progress in eradicating the disease. In particular, restrictions in relation to areas that
either had never experienced an outbreak during this epidemic or have not reported
outbreaks for more than 3 months have been dropped. Exports of live pigs – a
susceptible species which was only occasionally involved in this epidemic – will
resume shortly subject to conditions regarding health guarantees and movement
controls. This process of gradual lifting of the restrictions in the light of the progress
made in Great Britain will continue until the infection has been confidently eradicated.
What is the EU policy on combating FMD?
FMD is, according to the classification of the OIE, the economically most important
infectious livestock disease. While it is usually a disease of low mortality in animals
and has no public health relevance it has important consequences for animal welfare
and production. Clinically diseased animals normally suffer quite seriously, especially
animals of highly productive breeds and there are important losses of growth and
milk production.
One of the EU´s tasks in the veterinary field is to improve the state of health of
livestock. To protect the more than 300 million susceptible animals which are
vulnerable to the FMD virus requires effective measures reducing the risk of virus
introduction and spread. Trade with third countries not free of FMD is restricted to
products which have been treated against the virus. Strict border controls for imports
are applied to avoid contracting the FMD-virus from affected third countries. Swill
feeding as a possible route of passing on the virus has been increasingly forbidden.
In the case of an outbreak, the Community measures are directed to re-establish the
disease and infection free status of affected Member States or regions thereof within
the shortest possible delay and with a minimum of adverse effects. The most
effective means of doing so is to kill and destroy infected or potentially infected
animals so as to reduce the amount of virus in the environment and the number of
susceptible animals directly exposed to it. Vaccination can be used, subject to
certain conditions, as a complementary tool to reduce the virus production by
infected animals. There is a consensus on this objective in all Member States. The
FMD policy is laid out in Directive 85/511/EEC.
What lesson has the EU learnt from the recent outbreak?
Illegal imports of contaminated meat in connection with illegal swill feeding appears
to be the most likely origin of this outbreak. There are very strict controls on imports
which have been very successful in maintaining the EU's high animal disease status.
"Swill" for feeding to pigs, can only be produced from food fit for human consumption
(i.e. from restaurants, canteens etc.) and after heat treatment by licensed operators.
Moreover, waste from aircraft, ocean-going vessels etc. must be destroyed. Ensuring
the respect of these rules and controlling their correct implementation is the task of
national authorities.
However, to prevent any fraud and illegalities, the EU has decided to ban in a first
step swill (pig) feeding and in a second step to ban feeding in general catering
waste. This will come into force in October 2002.
2
Additionally, the Commission is currently carrying out a very thorough examination of
all the contributory factors to the recent outbreak and its consequences. This will
include:
Weaknesses in traceability of animals and especially of sheep;
-
Animal transport and especially measures which allow live animals from
different Member States to cross-contaminate one another;
- Vaccination and whether there needs to be a departure from the current
prohibition of prophylactic vaccination to generalised vaccination. And, if so, in
what circumstances and on what conditions;
- Sanitary controls on imports, bearing in mind that the existing EU provisions
are adequate, if respected, not only to keep out the virus but also to ensure
public health requirements are respected;
- Research into new vaccines which would effectively prevent vaccinated
animals becoming carrier animals, which would be effective against all or at
least several serotypes and induce a protective immunity within a shorter
period after administration. Further development of discriminatory tests, which
the Commission has already supported during the several years, would allow
vaccinated animals to be easily distinguished from infected animals not only on
a herd base as the current tests do but on an individual basis. This could
greatly increase the scope for protective vaccination.
- Further discussions in the relevant international bodies, especially in the OIE,
on the adaptation of the animal health code.
An opportunity for a full discussion will arise from the revision of the existing
legislation on FMD which the Commission is currently preparing. This work had
already begun long before the current outbreak.
What is the EU legislation on vaccination against FMD?
Prophylactic vaccination is not permitted under the present legislation. However,
emergency vaccination as a complementary measure to eradicate the disease is
provided for in EU legislation. The Netherlands did partly make use of a Commission
Decision authorising vaccination conditions. Vaccination was also authorised in the
UK but was not taken up.
Why do vaccinated animals still need to be slaughtered and
destroyed?
EU legislation has no provisions on the handling of vaccinated animals, except that
they may not be sent to another Member State. However, products of vaccinated
animals can be allowed for trade within the internal market after undergoing special
treatment.
Killing and destruction is therefore not required for the health of the vaccinated
animals nor for public health reasons. But vaccinated animals may become infected
and the lack of clinical signs may hide the infection thereby contributing to the spread
of the virus. Under a zero-risk approach the EU has so far considered this
unacceptable. Even when using marker vaccines the problem remains that
vaccination does not necessarily protect from infection.
3
Freedom of disease might be achieved through large-scale vaccination, freedom of
infection can only be ascertained by a non-vaccination policy!
From the above it is evident that killing and destruction is required in the case of
« suppressive vaccination » carried out within or very close to infected premises
pending the safe killing and destruction of the animals. This is necessary because
the likelihood of infection in vaccinated animals increases the shorter the distance to
the infected premises. With the available classical testing methods, it is impossible to
distinguish between an animal which has been vaccinated against FMD and one
which is infected.
« Protective vaccination » does not require the killing and destruction of the animals
concerned. Following the build-up of sufficient immunity the meat and milk of such
vaccinated animals may be used on the local market under certain conditions that
would ensure that any possible virus in such products was destroyed.
However, to avoid the problems arising from the inability to distinguish vaccinated
from infected animals, very strict controls on the movements of vaccinated animals
and their products are necessary to ensure that the disease does not spread
The Scientific Veterinary Committee of the EU proposed in 1997 a scenario whereby
using a discriminatory test to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals,
these animals could be kept alive, subject to certain restriction of their movement.
However the discriminatory tests were not recognized by OIE neither as an analytical
method nor in the context of trade associated certification. This situation has
changed and is under ongoing discussion.
The principles of testing for non-structural proteins are since August 2001 laid down
in the OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines. Expert groups of
the OIE are currently discussing the integration of these tests into the OIE Code for
surveillance purposes. If such tests are to be recognised to detect virus circulation,
even in vaccinated animals, such tests carried out on a strict statistical base may in
future facilitate the release of restrictions on vaccinated animals and their products in
a shorter delay than currently foreseen (1 year). But a definitive solution cannot be
envisaged before the General Assembly of OIE in May 2002.
What kind of emergency vaccination has been approved during the
recent FMD outbreak?
The Commission and the Member States had decided to approve vaccination, in
certain clearly defined circumstances, in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom.
The decision in relation to the Netherlands allowed « suppressive vaccination » as
described above because the Netherlands had insufficient capacity to carry out
killing and slaughter with the speed necessary to prevent the further spread of the
disease. The Netherlands was also been authorised to use « protective vaccination »
for cattle in the Oene region. Vaccination had to be clearly entered on the passports
of the cattle concerned. Any vaccinated cattle would not have been able to move
from the vaccination zone for at least one year after the last outbreak in that area.
4
However, the Netherlands did not use the possibility of keeping these vaccinated
cattle alive, because of the related restrictions. The decision in relation to the United
Kingdom also provided for « protective vaccination ». It allowed in principle the
vaccination of cattle only in the counties of Cumbria and Devon. Other species were
not to be vaccinated but pre-emptively killed in a certain radius around infected
premises. However, the movement of these vaccinated animals, by and large dairy
cows, would have been effectively confined to the regions concerned. And there
would also have been important restrictions on the movement of their milk and milk
products and – when eventually slaughtered – of meat and meat products from
these animals. The UK also decided not to make use of this exceptional possibility to
vaccinate.
Why did the EU not authorise more widespread use of “preventive
vaccination” during the recent outbreak?
Because it was not requested. Only the Netherlands and the UK had requested
authorisation for vaccination of farm animals and these requests were approved.
Formal requests from other Member States had not been received as preventive
vaccination was not considered necessary or appropriate in the recent
circumstances by these other Member States.
Why doesn't the EU give up its general prohibition on the use of
vaccines against FMD?
Vaccination appears an attractive alternative to killing and destroying animals. But
the reality is far different. Even if calls for general vaccination make the headlines,
there is still no widespread support for such a policy, neither from the Member
States, not the European Parliament nor from the farming community at large. In
reality vaccination is a very complex issue.
What are the problems with shifting towards a vaccination policy?
There are important limitations to a possible vaccination policy.
Vaccinated animals are not necessarily disease free - the antibodies that build up
through vaccination can hide the actual presence of FMD virus in an animal.
There is no test approved and internationally recognised to distinguish individually
vaccinated animals from infected animals. Vaccinating animals therefore does not
guarantee that the disease does not persist in the animal population. In fact, third
countries which do vaccinate on a preventive basis because FMD is endemic on
their territory regularly see new outbreaks of FMD due to the variability of the
virus. Even when using marker vaccines the problem remains that vaccination
does not necessarily protect from infection;
-
Vaccination is only effective in relation to the strain of FMD concerned and
offers no protection against other strains of the virus. There are seven
serotypes of FMD, each with several sub-strains. Any vaccination is effective
for a limited period only and has to carefully target the correct strain. As the
disease is not endemic in the EU, the selection of the appropriate vaccine
strain would be a pure lottery. Even a "cocktail" of vaccines administered could
not protect against all sub-strains of FMD;
5
-
There are significant logistical and cost implications in vaccination of a
livestock population of over 300 million susceptible animals (cattle, sheep,
pigs) in the EU which would all need to be vaccinated twice a year to give full
coverage;
- The Member States agreed to harmonise the health status throughout the
Community at the highest international recognised level and this is « FMD free
without vaccination » a status desperately aimed for by many countries in the
world. In those Member States where prophylactic vaccination was practised
in the past small ruminants and pigs were usually not included in the
vaccination programme and outbreaks were recorded despite vaccination;
- Finally, the loss of the EU's non-vaccination status would involve substantial
losses in trade to third countries which insist on importing from foot and mouth
free countries only. The EU could only export products which are treated
against the virus. The status of "FMD-free without vaccination" is attributed by
the International Organisation on Animal Health (OIE) in Paris. Only 1/3 of the
world is approximately FMD-free. See also:
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/AGAH/EUFMD/fmdmaps/default.htm
In the light of these circumstances, there is still a consensus that eradication of the
present outbreak, without use of generalised vaccination, was the best course of
action. Large-scale vaccination will only be considered if a foot and mouth epidemic
cannot be brought under control in any other way. This was not the case with the last
outbreak.
Is intensive farming at the origin of the disease?
All contributory factors must be considered but very simplistic explanations for very
complex problems should be avoided. FMD was eradicated in the EU in the late 80's
which permitted an end to vaccination in 1991. Since 1991, there have only been
outbreaks in Italy (1993), Greece (animal incursions from Turkey) and now in the UK.
This is a very successful record given that prior to 1991, FMD outbreaks were
commonplace resulting in huge trade, income and vaccination costs. Moreover:
-
FMD is most prevalent in countries/regions where agriculture is very "traditional" Middle East/North Africa/Turkey/South America. Conversely, outbreaks are
extremely rare in the OECD countries which have the most intensive agriculture;
-
Similarly, FMD was much more prevalent in the EU in the past, when agriculture
was less intensive, than at present. There have only been a handful of cases
since 1991 - in Italy (1993) and in Greece (2000).
6
Is the large-scale transport of animals the cause of the recent
outbreak?
Clearly, any process which brings animals from different herds together in a single
place or exposes them to large numbers of other animals increases the potential for
the spread of disease. But:
-
Most trade in meat and meat products is in carcass form and the number of
animals in long distance transport is in constant decline ever since refrigeration
allowed animal carcasses to be transported over long distances;
- Regulations exist to minimise the potential spread of disease in transport,
including "no-exit" provisions on transport to abattoirs, tracability of livestock
movements through the ANIMO system, disinfection of lorries and livestock
marts, health certification of animals etc;
- There will always be a need for long distance transport of specialised livestock
(breeding stock, racehorses etc.).
However, it remains a Commission objective to further reduce the level of long
distance animal transport and to improve the welfare conditions of animals in
transport. Moreover, a number of important restrictions on animal movements
introduced during the recent outbreak remain in place.
Is there financial compensation available to producers?
Yes, the Commission provides compensation, up to 60%, towards the costs of
animals destroyed, disinfection etc under an Emergency Veterinary Fund. An
advance of 400 Mio € will be provided from the budget 2001, with 355 Mio €
foreseen for the UK, 39 Mio € for the Netherlands, 2 Mio € for Ireland and 3 Mio € for
France. A further 400 Mio € are already earmarked for 2002. The total amount which
will be paid depends upon the receipt and acknowledgement of all requests for
compensation. It takes however years until the final balance is made and settled.
7