Key result
In the post-2001 regime, international trade became a significant source of foot and mouth disease risk, with imports from non-disease-free countries increasing the probability of outbreaks (OR 1.008 per 1000 head increase, p<0.001).
Observational (n=138)
The 2001 UK FMD epidemic reforms shifted the primary risk factor for FMD outbreaks from poor biosecurity to international trade volumes with non-disease-free regions.
Alerts to elevated FMD risk from post-2001 trade patterns; leaves open whether import restrictions reduce outbreaks.
The 2001 UK foot and mouth disease (FMD) epidemic marked a change in global FMD management, focusing less on trade isolation than on biosecurity within countries where FMD is endemic. Post 2001 policy calls for the isolation of disease-free zones in FMD-endemic countries, while increasing the opportunities for trade. The impact of the change on disease risk has yet to be tested. In this paper, we estimate an empirical model of disease risk that tests for the impact of trade volumes before and after 2001, controlling for biosecurity measures. In the pre 2001 regime, we find that poor biosecurity was associated with the probability of reporting an outbreak. In the post 2001 regime, the risks changed, with trade being a much greater source of risk. We discuss the trade-off between trade restrictions and biosecurity measures in the management of FMD disease risks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shanafelt et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Foot and mouth disease (FMD) (n=138). International live animal trade (imports from non-disease-free countries) vs. Lower trade volumes was evaluated on Probability of reporting a new FMD outbreak (OR 1.008, p=<0.001). In the post-2001 regime, international trade became a significant source of foot and mouth disease risk, with imports from non-disease-free countries increasing the probability of outbreaks (OR 1.008 per 1000 head increase, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: