Should Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) be a concern for Mauritius?

Should Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) be a Concern for Mauritius?

Overview of FMD

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral infection affecting all cloven-hoofed animals. It is characterized by frothing at the mouth, lameness, and a decline in milk production. While incidence rates are high, mortality rates are generally low.

First identified in the 16th century, FMD was declared “highly dangerous and devastating” in the 19th century, coinciding with the expansion of livestock production in Africa and Asia. The relatively low costs of meat and milk production in these regions were perceived as a threat to European and American farmers, who feared that the introduction of infected animal products could devastate their industries. This concern led to strict avoidance policies and widespread publicity emphasizing the potential economic losses FMD could cause if introduced into wealthy nations.

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), largely influenced by experts from developed countries, adopted this perspective and reinforced the notion that FMD represented a global danger to be avoided at all costs.

FMD in Mauritius

Historical records suggest that FMD first appeared in Mauritius in October 1916. Although the disease spread rapidly, mortality was extremely low. Out of approximately 3,228 cattle, 158 were compulsorily slaughtered. At the time, vaccines were unavailable, and control relied on containment measures such as banning cattle movement and prohibiting bullock carts used for transporting manure and sugarcane. The remaining animals developed immunity through natural exposure, and the outbreak subsided by April 1917.

Nearly a century later, in July 2016, Mauritius experienced another outbreak, this time in Rodrigues, caused by the O serotype of the virus. Despite the availability of vaccines and diagnostic tests worldwide, authorities opted for mass culling rather than vaccination. Over 2,380 cattle (39% of the herd) were slaughtered, sparking public outrage due to the methods used. The financial cost was immense compared to the 1916 outbreak.

Mauritius had previously achieved FMD-free status without vaccination in 2001 after years of effort by the Division of Veterinary Services. However, the 2016 outbreak led to the loss of this status, which has not yet been recovered. Another outbreak occurred in 2021, further complicating efforts to regain recognition. Government expenditures on FMD control have since amounted to tens of millions of rupees.

Why Spend So Much Money?

In 1916, FMD was largely self-limiting, and control measures were inexpensive. Meat from culled animals was likely consumed, as the virus is not transmissible to humans. The absence of FMD for a century suggests that the virus had ceased circulating locally.

By contrast, the 2016 outbreak led to the slaughter of nearly 30% of Rodrigues’ livestock, with carcasses disposed of in environmentally questionable ways. Despite mass vaccination, the virus reappeared in 2021. This time, public pressure prevented mass killings, and vaccination helped contain the spread. Nevertheless, significant sums were again spent on control measures.

Despite these efforts, Mauritius has not regained its FMD-free status. The OIE has formally withdrawn recognition, citing non-compliance with recovery requirements.

Economic Impact of FMD

Countries classified as FMD-infected by the OIE face restrictions on exporting livestock and animal products, particularly to the European Union. Mauritius once exported over 200 million rupees worth of corned beef annually to the UK in the 1990s, but exports ceased following the UK’s “Mad Cow Disease” crisis.

Today, Mauritius produces insufficient beef for domestic consumption, making large-scale exports unrealistic regardless of FMD status. While uncontrolled FMD can reduce productivity and cause some mortality, these losses can be minimized through biosecurity and vaccination.

Given the current situation, regaining FMD-free status may not be economically justified. Instead, mass vaccination covering at least 80% of susceptible animals, combined with improved laboratory facilities and technician training, could stabilize the situation. Mauritius could then negotiate trade agreements with African and Asian countries on a case-by-case basis, as it did with India in the past.

Conclusion

FMD control in Mauritius should focus on biosecurity, vaccination, laboratory development, and training rather than costly efforts to regain OIE recognition. The disease is often politicized, with exaggerated publicity serving to protect markets in Europe and the Americas from competition by developing countries.

In practical terms, Mauritius should prioritize sustainable disease management over pursuing an FMD-free status that offers little tangible benefit under current circumstances.