1. Introduction
Brazil’s agricultural sector, a powerhouse within the nation’s economy, stands at a pivotal juncture with the anticipated certification as free from foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) without vaccination. This status is more than just a marker of disease eradication; it signifies Brazil’s commitment to elevating animal health standards, strengthening biosecurity measures, and positioning itself as a leading supplier in the global livestock trade. With agriculture and livestock activities comprising nearly a quarter of Brazil’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), achieving FMD-free status without vaccination offers a strategic advantage that aligns with the country’s economic priorities and international trade ambitions [1].
The foot-and-mouth disease virus, which affects cloven-hoofed animals such as cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats poses serious economic and health risks for livestock-dependent economies. For decades, Brazil has maintained a robust FMD vaccination program to control and mitigate the spread of the disease. The widespread use of vaccination has allowed the country to prevent large-scale outbreaks and safeguard the health of its livestock population. However, transitioning to a vaccination-free status reflects a new phase in Brazil’s animal health strategy—a step that requires rigorous disease control and monitoring, but one that promises significant rewards [2]. The FMD has posed significant challenges to Brazil’s livestock industry since the early 20th century. Periodic outbreaks severely impacted the agricultural sector, prompting Brazil to implement vaccination programs in the mid-20th century as a primary strategy for disease control. By the 1970s, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply launched structured national campaigns to standardize vaccination and reduce virus spread, significantly improving herd immunity. In 1992, the Pan-American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Center (PANAFTOSA) was established, enabling regional collaboration and more effective monitoring. Brazil’s efforts led to the creation of FMD-free zones with vaccination, enhancing the country’s trade opportunities. By the early 2000s, advanced surveillance systems, stricter biosecurity measures, and international collaboration with the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) marked a turning point in Brazil’s fight against FMD. In 2018, several Brazilian regions were officially recognized by WOAH as FMD-free with vaccination. Building on this achievement, Brazil set its sights on transitioning to FMD-free status without vaccination. This shift required phasing out routine vaccination, strengthening diagnostic capabilities, and enhancing surveillance and emergency response systems. Today, Brazil continues to invest in animal health infrastructure, including diagnostic laboratories, veterinary training, and public awareness campaigns. Cross-border collaborations are also critical to prevent the reintroduction of the virus from neighboring countries. Brazil’s historical efforts reflect its commitment to eradicating FMD and maintaining FMD-free status. These actions have positioned Brazil as a leader in the global livestock trade, ensuring economic growth and sustainability while safeguarding its agricultural sector from future outbreaks [1,2].
The strategic rationale behind pursuing FMD-free certification without vaccination is grounded in the economic and trade benefits that such a status confers. International markets, particularly in regions like North America, Europe, and parts of Asia, have strict import requirements for livestock and animal products. These markets frequently impose trade restrictions on countries that use FMD vaccination due to concerns over the virus potentially entering their borders through vaccinated animals. However, vaccination has been widely studied as an effective mitigation strategy for controlling FMD outbreaks, as highlighted by Marschik et al. [3,4], who emphasized its role in reducing the spread and severity of outbreaks, particularly in regions where eradication remains a challenge. On the other hand, recent studies such as that of Conrady et al. [5] suggest that vaccination may not always be the optimal strategy from both an epidemiological and economic standpoint, particularly in countries aiming to achieve FMD-free status without vaccination. These contrasting perspectives underscore the complexity of FMD control strategies and highlight the importance of tailoring approaches to the specific needs and goals of each region. By achieving FMD-free certification without vaccination, Brazil gains access to these high-value markets, enabling the country’s livestock producers to command higher prices and enter trading partnerships that were previously out of reach. This expanded market access not only enhances Brazil’s export potential but also stimulates growth within the livestock industry, creating a positive ripple effect across the rural economy and strengthening the financial foundation of small-scale producers and large agribusinesses alike [6].
However, achieving and maintaining an FMD-free status without vaccination brings with it a set of complex challenges. Brazil’s expansive geography—spanning over 8.5 million square kilometers—includes a range of diverse climates and ecosystems, from tropical rainforests in the Amazon to arid plains in the Northeast. Monitoring and controlling animal health across this vast terrain is inherently challenging, as regions with limited infrastructure or access present logistical hurdles in implementing consistent disease surveillance. Moreover, Brazil shares borders with several countries, some of which continue to manage active FMD cases. These porous borders represent a constant threat, as animals and people moving across these regions increase the risk of FMD transmission into Brazilian territory [7].
Further complicating the challenge is the need for significant investment in biosecurity infrastructure, personnel training, and public awareness campaigns. To maintain a FMD-free status without vaccination, Brazil will need to deploy cutting-edge technology and engage in continuous surveillance, ensuring that any suspected cases are quickly identified, isolated, and addressed. This endeavor requires robust collaboration between the public and private sectors, as well as the cooperation of local communities and livestock owners, who play an essential role in adhering to biosecurity protocols. Government agencies, agricultural associations, and veterinary professionals must work in unison to reinforce biosecurity practices that limit the potential for disease reintroduction [8].
The potential rewards of this certification are as compelling as the challenges. As Brazil positions itself as a leading global supplier of FMD-free livestock products, it will likely see an increase in export revenue, job creation in rural areas, and overall sector growth that benefits communities nationwide. Additionally, the status reinforces Brazil’s credibility and influence in the international agricultural community, potentially setting a precedent for other large agricultural nations with similar geographic and economic profiles [9]. In this document, we will explore the expectations, challenges, risks, and monitoring requirements associated with Brazil’s certification as FMD-free without vaccination. We will also examine the economic gains anticipated from this status, particularly in terms of export growth, market access, and rural development. Ultimately, Brazil’s journey to FMD-free certification reflects not only a significant milestone in animal health but also a transformative step toward a more resilient and globally competitive agricultural sector.
2. Methodology Used in the Review
The present study is characterized, in terms of approach, as descriptive research consisting of a narrative literature review due to the broad nature of the review topic, as described by Grant and Booth [10]. The research was conducted using the electronic databases Periódicos Capes, PubMed, Scopus, ResearchGate, Scielo, Google Scholar, Academia.edu, BDTD, Redalyc, Science.gov, ERIC, ScienceDirect, SiBi, World Wide Science, PePSIC, and Scholarpedia. The search terms used, either in isolation or in combination, in the databases were as follows: Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Vaccination, Brazil, biosecurity, surveillance, economic impact, livestock health, border management, trade, and disease control.
3. Results
A total of 100 publications were found, with an 88% overlap rate among the databases consulted. To construct this review, it was decided to use only bibliographic references from indexed scientific articles and Brazilian and international legislation, limiting the data used to 56 references in the end. In the results section, the text is organized into topics (Section 4, Section 5, Section 6 and Section 7) and subtopics, aiming to facilitate readability and make the article more didactic.
4. Expectations for Brazil as an FMD-Free Country Without Vaccination
In summary, achieving FMD-free status without vaccination is expected to bring a range of positive outcomes for Brazil, both domestically and internationally. Economic gains through increased market access, strengthened biosecurity infrastructure, heightened global competitiveness, rural development incentives, and improved industry standards are just a few of the anticipated benefits. Additionally, the status reinforces Brazil’s role as a leader in the global agricultural community, enhancing its diplomatic influence and creating new opportunities for partnerships. However, these expectations hinge on Brazil’s ability to maintain rigorous disease surveillance and response systems, highlighting the importance of ongoing investment in biosecurity and a commitment to high standards in animal health [8,9].
4.1. Economic and Trade Benefits
One of the most immediate and anticipated benefits of achieving FMD-free status without vaccination is enhanced access to premium global markets. Countries that do not vaccinate against FMD are generally considered safer trading partners, as they present a lower perceived risk of FMD transmission. Many high-value markets, including those in North America, Europe, and parts of Asia, maintain strict import regulations that restrict the entry of animal products from countries still reliant on FMD vaccination. Achieving FMD-free status without vaccination will enable Brazil to overcome these trade barriers, thus allowing it to export livestock products to regions that have been previously inaccessible or limited by regulatory constraints [11].
With expanded access to premium markets, Brazilian livestock producers are expected to experience an increase in export volumes and prices. The demand for high-quality meat products is growing in countries with strict biosecurity standards, and these markets are often willing to pay a premium for products from FMD-free regions. By reaching these high-value markets, Brazil can secure higher profit margins for its meat products, which will ultimately strengthen the country’s position as a leading global supplier. Additionally, FMD-free status may facilitate Brazil’s entry into niche markets for specific animal products, such as organic or premium cuts, which are particularly attractive to health-conscious and high-income consumers [12].
The economic impact of FMD-free status is also expected to have a ripple effect across Brazil’s rural economy. Higher demand and better prices for livestock products will likely increase revenue for farmers and ranchers, stimulating growth and investment in rural areas. This may lead to job creation, improved infrastructure, and enhanced access to services in these regions. For Brazil, where rural communities often rely on livestock farming as a primary source of income, the socio-economic benefits of FMD-free status are substantial and may contribute to reduced poverty and improved quality of life in rural regions [11,12].
4.2. Strengthened Biosecurity and Surveillance Systems
Achieving and maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination requires a sophisticated biosecurity infrastructure to monitor and control potential outbreaks. One expectation associated with this new status is the establishment of enhanced surveillance systems, which will include real-time monitoring, data analysis, and rapid response mechanisms. Brazil will need to adopt cutting-edge technologies, such as geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, and artificial intelligence (AI), to ensure the comprehensive coverage and timely detection of any signs of FMD [13].
This shift toward more advanced biosecurity practices will not only help Brazil maintain its FMD-free status but will also set a new standard in animal health management. The establishment of these systems represents a long-term investment in Brazil’s agricultural infrastructure, which will benefit the country beyond FMD control. Effective biosecurity measures reduce the risk of other transboundary animal diseases, contributing to a more resilient livestock sector overall. Moreover, improved disease surveillance enhances Brazil’s readiness to respond to emerging infectious diseases, aligning with the global trend toward proactive disease prevention and control in the context of One Health—a multidisciplinary approach that emphasizes the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health [14].
4.3. Increased Competitiveness in the Global Market
As Brazil attains FMD-free status without vaccination, its competitiveness in the global livestock market is expected to strengthen significantly. This new status aligns with international standards of animal health, allowing Brazil (Figure 1 and Figure 2) to meet the stringent requirements set by organizations such as the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Compliance with these standards demonstrates Brazil’s commitment to high-quality production, making it a more attractive trading partner to countries that prioritize biosecurity and food safety [15].
Increased competitiveness also translates to greater leverage in trade negotiations. As one of the largest meat producers in the world, Brazil holds a prominent position in global trade, and FMD-free certification without vaccination enhances this position. This status not only boosts Brazil’s credibility but also grants it stronger bargaining power when negotiating trade agreements with countries that impose strict health standards. Brazil can leverage its FMD-free status as a unique selling point, differentiating itself from competitors who continue to rely on vaccination and thereby increasing its influence in setting international standards and policies related to animal health and trade [16].
4.4. Incentives for Rural Development and Industry Standards
Another key expectation of Brazil’s FMD-free certification without vaccination is the positive impact it will have on rural development. The livestock sector is deeply interconnected with Brazil’s rural economy, supporting millions of jobs and providing a foundation for rural livelihoods. As demand for Brazilian meat products grows in new markets, the financial benefits will extend to rural communities, creating opportunities for small and medium-sized producers to expand their operations and invest in better facilities, training, and technology [17].
The government and private sector are expected to implement new initiatives to support rural development in light of the increased demand for FMD-free livestock products. These initiatives may include grants, subsidies, and training programs aimed at helping farmers adopt biosecurity measures, improve animal health management, and enhance productivity. In addition, there may be a focus on creating a more integrated supply chain, encouraging collaboration between producers, processors, and exporters to maintain high-quality standards and increase efficiency [15].
Achieving FMD-free status without vaccination also sets a precedent for industry standards in animal health. To preserve this status, livestock producers will need to adhere to strict biosecurity and disease prevention protocols. Over time, these practices are likely to become ingrained in Brazil’s livestock industry, raising the bar for animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and production quality. By establishing a culture of high standards, Brazil can further differentiate itself as a source of premium livestock products and build long-term resilience against future disease threats [16,17].
The development of the livestock sector and rural economy in Brazil presents a unique opportunity to enhance and promote animal welfare. As emphasized in the “Contingency Plan for FMD—Tactical and Operation Levels: Animal Health Emergency Declaration and Management” [16] animal welfare is a critical component of sustainable livestock management and disease control. Achieving FMD-free status without vaccination requires implementing practices that minimize animal stress during transportation, handling, and quarantine, aligning with international standards for humane treatment. Additionally, improving biosecurity and surveillance systems indirectly supports animal welfare by reducing disease incidence and the need for emergency measures that could distress livestock. This dual focus on animal health and welfare not only addresses ethical concerns but also aligns with the expectations of global markets, where consumer demand increasingly favors products sourced from high-welfare farming systems. Integrating these considerations into national policies can strengthen Brazil’s leadership in the livestock trade while promoting the well-being of its animals [15,16,17].
4.5. Implications for Brazil’s International Standing and Agricultural Diplomacy
As one of the largest agricultural exporters in the world, Brazil’s journey to FMD-free status without vaccination carries significant diplomatic weight. This certification reinforces Brazil’s reputation as a responsible and reliable participant in the global agricultural community. By demonstrating its ability to control and prevent FMD without vaccination, Brazil solidifies its role as a leader in animal health management, particularly among emerging economies and countries with similar geographic and agricultural profiles [17,18].
Brazil’s FMD-free status without vaccination is expected to enhance its soft power and influence in international agricultural organizations, trade groups, and forums focused on animal health and food security. This status can serve as a model for other nations facing similar challenges, as Brazil’s success may inspire other large agricultural countries to pursue disease eradication through improved biosecurity and surveillance instead of relying solely on vaccination. As a result, Brazil may play a more active role in shaping policies, promoting best practices, and advocating for the integration of One Health principles at the global level [15,19].
In addition, Brazil’s FMD-free status could open doors for international partnerships and collaborations. Countries and organizations with advanced biosecurity expertise may be more inclined to work with Brazil on initiatives related to disease control, trade facilitation, and sustainable agricultural development. These partnerships can support knowledge exchange, capacity building, and technology transfer, ultimately contributing to Brazil’s long-term agricultural resilience and international standing [16,20].
5. Challenges in Achieving and Maintaining FMD-Free Status Without Vaccination
Achieving FMD-free status without vaccination represents a formidable goal for any country, but Brazil’s unique geographic, economic, and agricultural profile adds additional layers of complexity. Transitioning to and sustaining this status requires a high level of biosecurity, a unified approach across vast and diverse regions, and the effective management of cross-border risks. Each of these elements presents its own set of challenges, as outlined below. Brazil faces a complex set of challenges in achieving and maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination. An additional challenge in maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination lies in the dependency on epidemiological situations, both regionally and globally. The interconnected nature of trade, travel, and livestock movements means that changes in the epidemiological status of neighboring regions or trading partners can significantly increase the risk of virus reintroduction. For instance, if a neighboring country experiences an outbreak, porous borders and limited biosecurity measures could facilitate the spread of the disease into FMD-free zones. Additionally, global connectivity through imports, exports, and migratory species further amplifies these risks. Effective management requires continuous regional collaboration, robust border surveillance, and proactive contingency plans that adapt to evolving epidemiological landscapes. This highlights the necessity for Brazil to strengthen not only its internal monitoring systems but also to engage in cooperative efforts with neighboring countries to mitigate shared risks and ensure long-term disease-free status. Geographic and logistical constraints, cross-border risks, economic pressures on producers, and the need for sustained political and social support are all critical factors that must be addressed. Building a robust biosecurity infrastructure, fostering public trust, and ensuring rapid response capabilities are essential to safeguarding Brazil’s livestock industry and realizing the long-term benefits of FMD-free status. Overcoming these challenges will require coordinated efforts from government agencies, the private sector, and international partners to ensure that Brazil remains resilient against FMD and upholds its place as a global leader in agriculture [21,22].
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) remains a significant concern in global animal health, affecting livestock productivity and international trade. Brazil has achieved remarkable progress in controlling FMD, transitioning most regions to FMD-free status without vaccination, as certified by the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). However, challenges persist due to proximity to endemic areas, such as parts of Venezuela and Bolivia, which pose a constant risk of reintroduction. According to WOAH’s 2023 report, more than 70% of global livestock populations reside in FMD-endemic regions, emphasizing the disease’s persistent global impact. Brazil’s efforts to secure its FMD-free status are rooted in strategic vaccination campaigns that eradicated the disease in many states before transitioning to a vaccination-free approach. The country’s large geographic size, extensive livestock production, and shared borders with countries still managing FMD cases make maintaining this status a complex endeavor. Vigilance, regional collaboration, and biosecurity measures remain paramount [1].
The economic consequences of FMD are profound, affecting both production and trade. Brazil’s past outbreaks, such as those in 2005 and 2006, resulted in direct losses exceeding $1 billion. These outbreaks led to export bans, including a temporary suspension of Brazilian beef exports to critical markets such as Europe and Asia. This highlights the vulnerability of an economy heavily reliant on livestock exports, which constitute approximately 25% of Brazil’s agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Transitioning to an FMD-free status without vaccination has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits. Studies estimate that Brazilian beef exports could increase by 20–25%, equating to billions in annual revenue growth. Additionally, reduced costs associated with vaccination campaigns—estimated at over $100 million annually—further enhance the economic appeal of maintaining this certification. However, achieving these gains requires sustained investment in biosecurity and monitoring infrastructure to avoid costly reintroductions [23].
Several countries offer valuable lessons for Brazil in achieving and maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination. Austria and Denmark, both located in Europe, have successfully maintained FMD-free status through a combination of strong biosecurity measures, such as early disease detection systems and robust international collaboration. Research from Marschik et al. [3] highlights Austria’s emphasis on rapid response protocols and Denmark’s integration of epidemiological models for risk assessment to optimize resource allocation [4,5]. New Zealand and Australia have adopted strict import controls and surveillance mechanisms. Their success underscores the importance of geographical isolation and stringent border biosecurity to prevent FMD incursions [24,25,26]. Uruguay, a regional example, transitioned to FMD-free status through vaccination before strategically phasing it out. Their experience demonstrates the importance of regional collaboration, public–private partnerships, and long-term veterinary investments [27]. Brazil can draw from these experiences to enhance its disease prevention strategies, particularly by strengthening cross-border collaborations and ensuring transparency in disease monitoring and reporting [28].
The transition to FMD-free status without vaccination requires a careful evaluation of costs and benefits. Key investments include infrastructure for disease surveillance, training veterinary personnel, and implementing advanced diagnostic tools. While these costs are substantial, the benefits far outweigh them in the long term. On the economic front, Brazil saves over $100 million annually by eliminating mass vaccination programs. Moreover, the ability to access premium international markets reduces trade restrictions, leading to a projected 20–25% increase in livestock export revenue. The broader benefits also include improved productivity, better animal health, and reduced risk of economic shocks from FMD outbreaks [1,23,28]. Studies like Conrady et al. [5] suggest that while vaccination campaigns are effective in controlling FMD, they may not always be the most cost-efficient approach when eradication is the goal. In contrast, Marschik et al. [3] emphasize the economic value of preventive vaccination in regions with persistent disease presence. For Brazil, the decision to phase out vaccination aligns with the country’s long-term economic and epidemiological objectives. The article has already outlined the steps Brazil is taking to maintain its FMD-free status without vaccination, but expanding the discussion on a cost–benefit analysis strengthens the economic rationale behind this decision. Incorporating the examples of Austria, Denmark, and Uruguay highlights best practices and provides actionable insights for Brazil’s policymakers. These additions emphasize the balance between biosecurity investments and economic gains, ensuring that Brazil’s strategies remain sustainable and effective.
5.1. Geographic and Logistical Constraints
Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world, with a land area that spans multiple biomes and climates. The diversity and vastness of Brazil’s landscape create significant logistical challenges for disease monitoring, animal movement control, and overall biosecurity. The country’s livestock industry is spread across numerous regions, from the highly developed agribusiness sectors in the south to the more remote and less accessible areas in the Amazon Basin. The size and layout of the country make it difficult to establish a cohesive and comprehensive surveillance network. Monitoring animal health across Brazil’s rural and often isolated areas requires substantial resources and infrastructure, including veterinary staff, transportation, and communication systems. Additionally, rural regions may lack the resources to maintain the high standards of biosecurity needed for FMD-free status without vaccination. These challenges highlight the need for innovative solutions, such as mobile veterinary units and remote monitoring technologies, to address the country’s unique geographic demands [15,17].
5.2. Cross-Border Disease Risks
One of the most significant challenges Brazil faces in achieving FMD-free status without vaccination is the risk of FMD introduction from neighboring countries. Brazil shares borders with several countries, including Venezuela, Bolivia, and Paraguay, where FMD outbreaks have been reported in recent years. The cross-border movement of animals, people, and goods increases the likelihood of FMD introduction, posing a constant threat to Brazil’s FMD-free aspirations. To address these cross-border risks, Brazil will need to collaborate closely with neighboring countries on joint disease surveillance, information sharing, and coordinated response efforts. However, achieving such coordination is challenging, as neighboring countries may have varying levels of resources, infrastructure, and commitment to FMD eradication. Additionally, the political and economic dynamics in neighboring countries can affect the continuity and reliability of cross-border biosecurity efforts. For example, economic or political instability can lead to the lax enforcement of biosecurity measures or an increase in informal trade, further increasing the risk of FMD spread [29,30].
5.3. Building and Maintaining Comprehensive Biosecurity Infrastructure
Achieving and maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination demands a sophisticated biosecurity infrastructure capable of rapid disease detection, monitoring, and containment. While Brazil has made significant strides in recent years, transitioning to an FMD-free status without the protective buffer of vaccination requires a further enhancement of existing biosecurity systems. This entails investing in technologies and facilities to facilitate real-time disease tracking, routine testing, and emergency response capabilities. Implementing these systems across Brazil’s vast territory poses logistical and financial challenges. A key concern is ensuring consistent and timely data collection from all regions, including remote and under-resourced areas. Additionally, maintaining biosecurity infrastructure requires continuous funding and skilled personnel. Training veterinarians, farmers, and livestock handlers in biosecurity protocols is essential, but it can be difficult to achieve consistent knowledge and practices across the entire livestock sector. Without sustained financial and logistical support, there is a risk that biosecurity infrastructure could deteriorate over time, leaving Brazil vulnerable to potential FMD outbreaks [31,32].
5.4. Economic Pressures on Livestock Producers
Transitioning to FMD-free status without vaccination places economic pressures on livestock producers, particularly small and medium-sized farmers who rely on vaccination as an affordable disease management tool. Phasing out vaccination may create initial uncertainties for producers, who may worry about the increased risk of FMD reintroduction and the potential financial losses that could result from an outbreak. Additionally, the cost of complying with enhanced biosecurity protocols—such as implementing on-farm disease prevention measures, constructing secure animal holding areas, and conducting regular health screenings—may strain the resources of smaller producers. To address these concerns, the government and industry associations may need to offer financial support and incentives to help producers adapt to the new standards. However, balancing economic support for producers with the need for stringent biosecurity practices is a delicate task. If economic pressures are not adequately managed, some producers may resist the transition or be forced to leave the industry, which could disrupt Brazil’s livestock supply chain and impact rural economies [15,33].
5.5. Social and Cultural Challenges
The shift away from vaccination in Brazil also involves social and cultural adjustments among livestock producers, veterinarians, and local communities. For decades, vaccination has been the primary method of FMD prevention, and it is a well-established practice in the country’s livestock industry. Transitioning to a no-vaccination policy requires a shift in mindset, where all stakeholders recognize the importance of rigorous biosecurity and surveillance as the new standards for disease prevention. Educating producers and other stakeholders about the benefits and necessity of achieving FMD-free status without vaccination is essential. Resistance to change may stem from a lack of understanding of the economic advantages or concerns about the risks involved. Addressing these concerns requires clear and consistent communication from government agencies, veterinary associations, and industry leaders. Public education campaigns, training programs, and workshops can help raise awareness and ensure that producers are well-informed and equipped to comply with the new standards. The government must work to build trust among producers, emphasizing that this transition will ultimately benefit the industry and the country’s economy [16,34].
5.6. Ensuring Political and Institutional Support
Achieving and maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination is a long-term commitment that requires strong political and institutional support. This effort demands sustained funding, policy continuity, and consistent enforcement of biosecurity regulations. Changes in political leadership or economic priorities can impact the availability of resources and the level of institutional commitment to FMD eradication efforts. For example, shifts in budget allocations or policy changes could affect funding for surveillance programs, disease control measures, and biosecurity infrastructure. Ensuring political and institutional support requires close collaboration between federal, state, and local governments, as well as engagement with the private sector and international organizations. The government must prioritize FMD-free status as a national objective, integrating it into broader agricultural and economic policies. Additionally, political leaders and institutions must work to build public and industry consensus on the benefits of FMD-free certification, reinforcing the importance of this goal for Brazil’s agricultural future [17,32].
5.7. Risk of Disease Reintroduction and the Need for Rapid Response
Once vaccination is phased out, Brazil will face an increased risk of FMD reintroduction. Without the buffer of vaccination, any introduction of the virus into Brazil’s livestock population could lead to a rapid spread, resulting in severe economic and trade impacts. As such, Brazil must be prepared to respond to potential outbreaks with urgency and efficiency. Establishing a rapid-response system that includes quarantine measures, culling of infected animals, and immediate containment protocols is essential to minimize the risk of widespread transmission. The success of such a system depends on timely communication, coordination between agencies, and availability of resources. Delays or gaps in response could have devastating consequences for Brazil’s livestock industry and its FMD-free status. Ensuring that all regions have access to emergency response resources, including trained personnel, quarantine facilities, and testing laboratories, is crucial. Additionally, Brazil must be prepared to conduct regular drills and simulations to test the effectiveness of its response protocols and make necessary adjustments based on emerging threats [17,32,35].
6. Risks and Potential Setbacks in Achieving FMD-Free Status Without Vaccination
Transitioning to FMD-free status without vaccination brings significant potential for economic growth, expanded trade, and biosecurity advancements for Brazil. However, this path is not without risks and potential setbacks. The success of this endeavor depends on Brazil’s ability to mitigate a range of risks, including disease reintroduction, economic vulnerabilities, public resistance, and challenges in regulatory compliance. By anticipating and mitigating these potential setbacks, Brazil can strengthen its ability to sustain FMD-free status and secure the long-term benefits of this achievement for its livestock sector and economy [16,36].
6.1. Risk of Disease Reintroduction and Outbreaks
One of the most critical risks in achieving FMD-free status without vaccination is the potential reintroduction of the FMD virus into Brazil’s livestock population. Without the protective buffer provided by vaccination, any entry of the virus could spread rapidly and lead to large-scale outbreaks. This is particularly concerning given Brazil’s proximity to neighboring countries where FMD outbreaks have occurred in recent years. The cross-border movement of animals, people, and goods increases the likelihood of FMD reintroduction, especially in border regions with less stringent biosecurity measures. An outbreak of FMD would have devastating consequences for Brazil’s livestock industry and economy. The country would face trade restrictions, decreased consumer confidence, and potential economic losses in the billions of dollars due to livestock mortality, decreased productivity, and the costs associated with containment and eradication measures. To minimize the risk of reintroduction, Brazil must maintain strict quarantine protocols at borders, invest in cross-border disease monitoring, and implement rapid response measures in high-risk areas. Additionally, the establishment of a vaccine bank could serve as a critical safeguard in the event of an outbreak. A vaccine bank would allow Brazil to rapidly deploy targeted vaccination campaigns to contain the disease and prevent further spread, offering a strategic layer of protection while avoiding the need for routine vaccination. This approach has been successfully implemented in other FMD-free countries, providing a valuable contingency measure that complements robust surveillance and biosecurity efforts. Integrating a vaccine bank into Brazil’s contingency planning would further enhance the country’s preparedness and resilience against potential FMD outbreaks [6,7,8,9,17,32].
6.2. Economic Vulnerability to Trade Disruptions
Achieving FMD-free status without vaccination is expected to enhance Brazil’s access to premium global markets, yet it also exposes the country to new economic risks. An FMD outbreak in a country with FMD-free status can lead to severe trade restrictions, with importing countries suspending meat exports from affected regions. Such trade disruptions would directly impact Brazil’s livestock producers, particularly those who rely on export markets for revenue. For a country with a substantial agricultural export sector, the risk of trade disruptions due to FMD reintroduction represents a significant economic vulnerability. In the event of an outbreak, Brazil would face additional costs associated with containment measures, compensation to affected farmers, and the restoration of trade relations. This risk underscores the importance of diversifying export markets and establishing contingency plans, including insurance mechanisms, to protect producers and stabilize the market in case of trade suspensions. The government may also consider setting up emergency funds to support producers in the event of an outbreak, which would help mitigate economic losses and provide a safety net for the livestock sector [37,38].
6.3. Cost–Benefit Analysis of Achieving and Maintaining FMD-Free Status Without Vaccination
Achieving and maintaining foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) free status without vaccination represents a significant economic and strategic shift for countries like Brazil. However, transitioning to this status requires a thorough cost–benefit analysis to evaluate its feasibility and long-term sustainability. This analysis involves assessing both direct and indirect costs associated with enhanced surveillance systems, biosecurity measures, and emergency response capacities, alongside the benefits derived from increased market access, higher livestock productivity, and improved trade relations. The costs of achieving this status include significant investments in infrastructure for animal health monitoring, training of personnel, and development of rapid diagnostic capabilities. For instance, implementing robust surveillance programs, border controls, and outbreak containment strategies requires substantial financial and technical resources. Additionally, the economic risks associated with the potential reintroduction of FMD must be accounted for, as a single outbreak could nullify years of effort and investment [1,23,24,25,26,27,28].
On the benefit side, countries that have successfully attained FMD-free status without vaccination, such as Denmark [5] and Austria [3,4], report substantial economic gains. These include premium prices for livestock products in international markets, reduced costs associated with vaccine procurement and administration, and strengthened reputations as reliable trade partners. A study in Uruguay showed that transitioning to a vaccination-free status led to a significant increase in exports, demonstrating the long-term economic benefits of this approaches cost–benefit equation is influenced by its extensive livestock industry, accounting for a significant portion of the national GDP. A study conducted by de Menezes et al. [1] indicated that FMD outbreaks could result in losses exceeding billions of USD due to trade restrictions and decreased productivity. Conversely, maintaining an FMD-free status could unlock access to premium markets that currently impose restrictions on vaccinated animals [25].
Lessons learned from countries like Uruguay and Denmark highlight the importance of strategic investments in prevention and preparedness. Uruguay, for example, employed the PROMETHEE method to prioritize actions based on their cost-effectiveness, successfully transitioning to FMD-free status without vaccination. These experiences highlight the importance of evaluating the economic trade-offs while considering country-specific factors such as geography, infrastructure, and trade dynamics. A robust cost–benefit analysis not only aids policymakers in resource allocation but also ensures stakeholder buy-in, fostering a collaborative approach to achieving and sustaining FMD-free status. This comprehensive evaluation is critical for countries like Brazil, where the potential benefits can significantly outweigh the costs, provided risks are managed effectively [1,5,23,25,27].
6.4. Biosecurity and Surveillance Gaps
While biosecurity and surveillance systems are essential for maintaining FMD-free status, gaps in these systems pose a considerable risk to Brazil’s livestock industry. Comprehensive biosecurity requires regular disease monitoring, data collection, and strict enforcement of disease prevention measures. However, Brazil’s vast territory and diverse livestock production systems present challenges in achieving uniform biosecurity standards. Remote or underserved areas, where veterinary services and surveillance infrastructure may be limited, are particularly vulnerable to lapses in biosecurity. Additionally, maintaining rigorous surveillance and biosecurity measures requires substantial funding and resources. Inconsistent or inadequate funding can lead to weakened disease monitoring and response capacity, increasing the risk of undetected FMD transmission. For Brazil to effectively mitigate biosecurity risks, it must invest consistently in disease surveillance, particularly in high-risk areas near borders or in regions with dense livestock populations. Enhancing biosecurity infrastructure in remote areas, training personnel, and leveraging technology for remote monitoring are essential strategies to address these vulnerabilities [39,40].
6.5. Potential Resistance from Livestock Producers
Transitioning to FMD-free status without vaccination also carries the risk of resistance from livestock producers, particularly small and medium-sized farmers who may view vaccination as an affordable and reliable form of disease prevention. Removing the option of vaccination may create uncertainty among producers who are concerned about the increased risk of FMD and the economic impact of a potential outbreak. Additionally, compliance with strict biosecurity protocols can be costly and time-consuming, placing an additional burden on producers who are already operating on limited margins. Public resistance to the no-vaccination policy may also be influenced by cultural factors, as vaccination has been the primary FMD prevention method for decades. Some producers may question the necessity of the transition or be unwilling to adopt new practices due to perceived risks. Overcoming this resistance requires effective communication, education, and support from government agencies, industry associations, and veterinary professionals. Providing financial incentives, technical assistance, and training programs can help producers adapt to the new standards and foster a sense of collective responsibility for maintaining Brazil’s FMD-free status [41,42].
6.6. Weaknesses in Emergency Preparedness and Rapid Response
Achieving and maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination increases the need for a robust emergency preparedness and rapid response system. Any delay in detecting or responding to an FMD outbreak could have severe consequences, as the virus can spread rapidly through livestock populations. An effective response system requires trained personnel, quarantine facilities, diagnostic laboratories, and efficient communication channels. However, weaknesses in these areas, particularly in remote or rural regions, pose a risk to Brazil’s ability to contain potential outbreaks. A critical aspect of emergency preparedness is conducting regular simulation exercises to test and refine response protocols. Without these drills, response teams may face challenges in coordinating containment efforts, leading to delays and increased transmission risk. Furthermore, resource constraints, bureaucratic hurdles, or lack of coordination among government agencies and industry stakeholders can impede the effectiveness of Brazil’s rapid response system. Strengthening emergency preparedness involves continuous training, investment in infrastructure, and ensuring that response protocols are clear, adaptable, and well-communicated across all levels [43,44].
6.7. Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement Challenges
Strict regulatory compliance is necessary to maintain FMD-free status, as any lapse in enforcement of biosecurity measures could increase the risk of FMD transmission. Ensuring compliance across Brazil’s extensive livestock sector, which includes a range of production systems and regions, is a complex task. Smallholders and informal livestock operators, in particular, may lack the resources or awareness needed to fully comply with biosecurity regulations. Additionally, enforcing regulations in remote or underserved areas can be difficult due to limited personnel and logistical challenges. Failure to enforce biosecurity standards uniformly can create weak points in Brazil’s disease prevention framework, potentially allowing FMD to spread within the country. To mitigate this risk, the government must allocate resources for consistent inspection, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. Providing support and resources to smallholders, conducting outreach programs, and establishing penalties for non-compliance are key strategies to address regulatory challenges and strengthen Brazil’s overall biosecurity compliance [16,17,32].
6.8. International Pressure and Reputational Risks
As Brazil works to achieve and maintain FMD-free status without vaccination, it will face scrutiny from international markets, trading partners, and organizations like the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). Any lapses in biosecurity or outbreaks of FMD could damage Brazil’s reputation and lead to increased scrutiny or restrictions from trading partners. Such reputational risks have implications beyond FMD, as they can impact Brazil’s broader agricultural exports and its standing in the global agricultural community. Brazil may also face pressure from international stakeholders to maintain high standards and provide regular documentation of its FMD-free status. Failing to meet these expectations could result in trade restrictions or reputational damage that would affect Brazil’s position as a reliable supplier of agricultural products. To mitigate these risks, Brazil must demonstrate transparency, accountability, and consistency in its disease prevention and monitoring efforts. Proactively engaging with international organizations, providing regular updates on its FMD-free status, and participating in international initiatives related to animal health can help Brazil maintain its reputation and address any concerns from the global community [16,17,32].
7. Monitoring and Surveillance Requirements for Maintaining FMD-Free Status Without Vaccination
Achieving and maintaining an FMD-free status without vaccination requires Brazil to implement a robust and comprehensive monitoring and surveillance system. Such a system is essential for the early detection of FMD cases, rapid containment of potential outbreaks, and continuous assessment of disease risks across the country. Surveillance must be meticulous and consistent, particularly as Brazil transitions away from vaccination, which had previously served as a safeguard against FMD. To meet international standards and protect the health of its livestock population, Brazil must establish a multifaceted surveillance framework encompassing field monitoring, diagnostic testing, data management, and collaboration with both domestic and international partners. By investing in a comprehensive surveillance network, strengthening diagnostic capacity, and fostering collaboration at both national and international levels, Brazil can ensure that its livestock sector remains resilient against FMD risks. Vigilant monitoring and proactive risk management are essential to protecting Brazil’s livestock industry and reinforcing the country’s reputation as a reliable and safe source of agricultural products [45,46].
7.1. Establishing a National Surveillance Network
An effective FMD surveillance system in Brazil begins with the establishment of a coordinated national network that enables real-time disease tracking and rapid response capabilities. Given Brazil’s extensive size and diverse agricultural landscape, this network must be comprehensive, covering all regions, including remote and underserved areas. Veterinary services, local health agencies, and agricultural extension offices should work together to create a web of interconnected monitoring points that can quickly report any suspected cases of FMD. Key elements of this surveillance network include the following: (A) Regular inspections of livestock, as routine health checks and monitoring in high-density livestock areas are crucial for early disease detection. Veterinary teams should be trained to recognize the clinical signs of FMD and to report cases promptly. (B) Mobile veterinary units for remote areas. Given Brazil’s vast and often inaccessible regions, mobile units can provide veterinary care and surveillance in areas that lack permanent veterinary infrastructure. (C) Outreach programs for smallholders that engage smallholders, who may have limited access to veterinary services, ensuring that disease surveillance reaches all segments of the livestock population. Outreach initiatives can educate smallholders on FMD symptoms, biosecurity practices, and reporting mechanisms [47,48].
7.2. Diagnostic Testing Protocols
Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential for confirming FMD cases and distinguishing them from other diseases with similar symptoms. Brazil’s surveillance system must incorporate advanced diagnostic testing protocols that are capable of detecting FMD virus with high sensitivity and specificity. This requires establishing a network of diagnostic laboratories equipped with the necessary technology, skilled personnel, and standardized procedures for FMD testing. The main diagnostic approaches include the following: (A) Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing is one of the most reliable methods for detecting the FMD virus, as it can identify viral RNA in various samples, including blood, saliva, and tissue. PCR’s high sensitivity makes it suitable for early detection, especially in asymptomatic animals or during the initial stages of an outbreak. (B) Serological testing to detect antibodies against FMD; serological testing is essential for identifying animals that have been previously exposed to the virus. While Brazil transitions to a no-vaccination status, serological testing remains crucial for understanding disease exposure patterns and monitoring immunity levels in the livestock population. (C). On-site rapid tests, while less accurate than laboratory-based methods, can be used in field conditions to provide preliminary results within minutes. Such tests are particularly valuable for initial screening in remote areas where laboratory access may be limited [49,50].
By combining these diagnostic approaches, Brazil can create a layered testing system that allows for immediate field screening, followed by confirmation through laboratory diagnostics. This tiered strategy ensures that FMD cases are identified quickly and accurately, minimizing the risk of undetected spread [16,32].
7.3. Data Integration and Disease Tracking Systems
Efficient data integration and disease tracking are critical for Brazil’s FMD monitoring system. Disease data must be collected, analyzed, and disseminated rapidly across all levels, from local veterinary offices to national authorities. To achieve this, Brazil should implement an integrated digital platform that consolidates data from different regions and sources, including diagnostic results, field reports, and livestock movement records [51].
A well-designed data management system enables the following: (A) Real-time tracking of disease trends, as an integrated platform allows authorities to monitor the geographic spread of FMD and assess potential hotspots, enabling timely intervention in high-risk areas. (B) Data-driven decision-making, as centralized data collection enables government agencies to analyze trends, identify vulnerable regions, and allocate resources effectively. Predictive analytics can also be used to assess the probability of outbreaks based on historical patterns and environmental factors. (C) Public transparency that provides transparent access to disease data fosters trust among producers, consumers, and international partners. Regularly published reports on FMD status reassure stakeholders that Brazil is actively managing its disease risks [52].
Investment in digital infrastructure, including mobile applications for remote data entry, GPS-based tracking of livestock movements, and machine learning algorithms for outbreak prediction, can significantly enhance Brazil’s ability to monitor and respond to FMD risks in real-time [16].
7.4. Border Surveillance and Cross-Border Cooperation
Given Brazil’s shared borders with countries where FMD outbreaks have occurred, border surveillance is a top priority in the overall monitoring framework. Effective border surveillance involves rigorous control measures at entry points, quarantine facilities, and collaboration with neighboring countries to track livestock movements and share disease data. Key measures for border surveillance include the following: (A). Quarantine and inspection at entry points, with livestock entering Brazil having to undergo thorough inspections and, if necessary, quarantine to ensure they are FMD-free. Border inspection stations need to be equipped with diagnostic tools to identify FMD cases before animals enter the country. (B). Movement restrictions and checkpoints in regions with high cross-border traffic, where Brazil can establish checkpoints to control animal movements and enforce biosecurity standards. (C). Cross-border agreements and joint surveillance efforts, whereby Brazil should collaborate with neighboring countries to establish joint surveillance programs, share data, and harmonize biosecurity measures. By working together, Brazil and its neighbors can create a buffer against FMD transmission, reducing the risk of cross-border outbreaks [53,54].
7.5. Training and Capacity Building
Maintaining a skilled workforce is essential for effective FMD monitoring and surveillance. Brazil must ensure that veterinarians, livestock handlers, and other relevant personnel are trained in disease recognition, biosecurity protocols, and data reporting. Continuous training programs not only improve the capacity of local veterinary services but also help standardize FMD monitoring practices across the country. Capacity-building initiatives may include the following: (A). Workshops and certification programs with regular workshops for veterinarians, farmers, and border inspection staff to provide ongoing education on FMD recognition, diagnostic procedures, and biosecurity measures. (B). Simulations and drills, such as conducting mock FMD outbreak simulations, allowing authorities to test and refine their response protocols. These drills can highlight areas for improvement in the surveillance and response system, ensuring that teams are prepared for real-world scenarios. (C). Collaboration with academic institutions, including partnering with universities and research institutes, can help Brazil stay updated on advancements in FMD surveillance technologies and practices. Academic collaborations can also provide a pipeline of trained veterinarians and epidemiologists to support Brazil’s monitoring efforts [55,56].
7.6. Community Engagement and Farmer Education
The success of FMD surveillance in Brazil relies on the active participation of the farming community. Livestock producers play a vital role in disease detection, as they are often the first to notice signs of illness. Engaging and educating farmers on the importance of FMD surveillance encourages timely reporting and adherence to biosecurity measures. Community engagement efforts can include the following: (A) Educational campaigns can inform farmers about the risks of FMD, the benefits of FMD-free status, and their role in disease prevention, thus fostering a sense of shared responsibility. Government agencies can distribute informational materials, hold community meetings, and use social media to reach a wide audience. (B). Reporting hotlines and mobile apps can establish a user-friendly reporting system that allows farmers to report suspected FMD cases quickly. Mobile applications or hotlines can make the reporting process accessible, even in remote areas. (C). Incentive programs cab offer incentives, such as compensation for reported cases or recognition for biosecurity compliance, and they can encourage farmers to participate actively in surveillance efforts. Such programs reinforce the importance of timely disease reporting for the entire livestock sector [16,32,51].
7.7. Regular Audits and International Collaboration
Regular audits of Brazil’s FMD surveillance system ensure compliance with international standards and demonstrate Brazil’s commitment to maintaining FMD-free status. Independent audits, whether conducted by national agencies or international bodies like the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), can identify weaknesses in the surveillance system and provide recommendations for improvement. Additionally, international collaboration with countries that have already achieved FMD-free status without vaccination offers valuable insights and best practices. International partnerships can include the following: (A). Technical assistance from WOAH and FAO, as collaborating with organizations such as the WOAH and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) would allow Brazil to access technical expertise, capacity-building resources, and financial support for surveillance improvements. (B). Knowledge exchange programs, as learning from countries with established FMD-free status, such as the United States and Australia, would help Brazil adopt proven strategies for disease prevention and monitoring. (C). Participation in regional disease control networks, as Brazil can join regional networks focused on animal health to share information, coordinate disease control efforts, and receive support during emergency situations [16,29,32,34].
8. Long-Term Outlook and Sustainability
The long-term outlook for Brazil as an FMD-free country without vaccination is both promising and demanding, requiring sustained commitment, strategic planning, and continuous investment in animal health and biosecurity measures. Achieving FMD-free status without vaccination signifies a significant milestone for Brazil’s livestock industry, underscoring its potential to bolster economic growth, open new international markets, and enhance Brazil’s role as a global agricultural leader. However, sustaining this status will involve addressing complex, evolving challenges, especially given Brazil’s size, diverse ecosystems, and extensive borders with countries still combating FMD [17,22].
8.1. The Path to Sustaining FMD-Free Status
Maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination requires a proactive approach that anticipates and mitigates future risks. This will involve Brazil investing in animal health infrastructure, upgrading disease surveillance technologies, and consistently aligning with international standards. A primary focus should be on strengthening and modernizing its monitoring and response capabilities to ensure the early detection of FMD and other emerging infectious diseases. Key priorities for sustaining FMD-free status include the following: (A) Continued surveillance and innovation in disease monitoring, with ongoing investment in advanced diagnostic tools, data integration systems, and real-time disease monitoring being essential. Emerging technologies, such as machine learning for predictive disease modeling and the use of drones or satellite imaging for monitoring livestock movements, could add innovative layers of protection. (B) Adaptability to climate change and disease evolution as climate change is expected to alter the epidemiological landscape of many infectious diseases, including FMD. As new environmental conditions emerge, Brazil will need to monitor changes in disease patterns closely and adapt its surveillance and biosecurity practices accordingly. Investing in research on how climate influences FMD transmission, as well as creating adaptable response plans, will be critical. (C) Strengthening veterinary capacity and infrastructure to sustain FMD-free status, as Brazil must continue to build a skilled and well-distributed veterinary workforce. Expanding training programs for veterinarians and livestock handlers, especially in remote areas, ensures the rapid response to potential outbreaks and the ongoing support for biosecurity measures across the livestock sector [15,22,32,52].
8.2. Promoting International Collaboration and Knowledge Exchange
Brazil’s position as an FMD-free country presents an opportunity for it to take a leading role in regional and global disease control initiatives. By actively participating in international organizations such as the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) and engaging in partnerships with neighboring countries, Brazil can help advance coordinated efforts to eradicate FMD regionally. Benefits of international collaboration include the following: (A) Access to resources and expertise through partnerships with organizations like WOAH and the FAO, enabling Brazil to access funding, technical assistance, and global knowledge resources. Collaboration with countries that have successfully maintained FMD-free status without vaccination can also provide insights into best practices and new technologies. (B) Cross-border disease control initiatives, since Brazil shares borders with FMD-affected countries and cross-border cooperation is crucial for mitigating re-introduction risks. Joint surveillance programs, information sharing, and harmonization of biosecurity standards can reduce the likelihood of FMD transmission across borders. (C) Leadership in global agricultural standards, as Brazil solidifies its FMD-free status and has the potential to influence and set standards for animal health in the region. By promoting best practices, Brazil can contribute to a healthier and more resilient livestock industry throughout South America [17,32,39,40].
8.3. Economic and Social Benefits of a Sustainable FMD-Free Status
Sustaining FMD-free status offers Brazil both immediate and long-term economic advantages. Over the coming years, maintaining this status could be transformative for Brazil’s agricultural economy, benefiting not only large-scale producers but also smallholder farmers who rely on livestock for their livelihoods. Economic and social benefits include the following: (A) Increased access to high-value markets, as an FMD-free country statues would allow Brazil to command higher prices for its meat products in premium markets, including countries that restrict imports from FMD-affected regions. This access not only increases revenue for exporters but also contributes to Brazil’s overall economic stability. (B) Job Creation and rural development, as the growth in demand for Brazilian livestock products would increase the need for a robust agricultural workforce. Sustainable FMD-free status can stimulate job creation in rural areas, from veterinary services to meat processing, contributing to rural development and poverty reduction. (C) Improved public health and food security, as an effective FMD surveillance and control system also reduces the risk of zoonotic disease transmission, promoting public health. By investing in animal health and biosecurity, Brazil can ensure a safer food supply chain, enhancing food security and resilience [41,42,54].
8.4. Building a Culture of Biosecurity and Sustainability
For Brazil to maintain FMD-free status in the long term, the culture of biosecurity must become deeply embedded across all levels of the livestock industry. This cultural shift requires a commitment from all stakeholders, including government agencies, producers, veterinarians, and consumers. Education and awareness campaigns play a crucial role in instilling a biosecurity-first mindset that prioritizes proactive disease prevention and rapid response. Actions to promote a biosecurity culture include the following: (A). Continuous education and awareness programs that provide regular training and resources to farmers, veterinarians, and community leaders to help keep biosecurity practices top-of-mind. Government agencies can use digital platforms, community meetings, and media campaigns to reinforce the importance of biosecurity. (B) Incentive programs for compliance, as rewarding producers who adhere to biosecurity standards can encourage widespread adoption. Financial incentives, certifications, and public recognition can motivate producers to take biosecurity measures seriously. (C) Consumer engagement, as engaging consumers in biosecurity awareness fosters a sense of shared responsibility. As consumers become more informed about the benefits of FMD-free status, they may advocate for products that adhere to high animal health standards, further incentivizing producers to maintain rigorous biosecurity practices [46,55,56].
8.5. Preparing for Future Risks and Building Resilience
Sustaining FMD-free status without vaccination is a dynamic challenge that will require Brazil to be resilient in the face of emerging threats. The country must be prepared to respond to potential crises, whether due to a resurgence of FMD, the emergence of new infectious diseases, or changing economic conditions. Flexibility and adaptability will be key to navigating these challenges while protecting the integrity of Brazil’s FMD-free status. Future-focused resilience measures include the following: (A) Establishing emergency response plans, whereby Brazil should develop and periodically update contingency plans for potential FMD outbreaks. Regular simulations and emergency drills help authorities, veterinary teams, and producers respond effectively to unexpected disease events. (B) Investing in disease research and surveillance technologies to support research on FMD and related diseases, as well as to investigate next-generation surveillance technologies, thus strengthening Brazil’s capacity to stay ahead of potential threats. Innovative research on vaccine alternatives, diagnostics, and epidemiology can inform future strategies. (C) Monitoring and adapting to global trends, as global trade, climate change, and other factors can shift the landscape of disease risk. By staying attuned to these trends, Brazil can adjust its FMD-free strategy to address emerging risks and maintain a competitive edge in the global market [17,32,40,54].
8.6. A Vision for Brazil’s Agricultural Future
Brazil’s FMD-free status without vaccination is not merely a disease control measure; it represents a broader vision for a thriving, resilient agricultural industry that meets the highest global standards. By securing and sustaining this status, Brazil positions itself as a leader in animal health, a trusted food supplier, and a key player in advancing agricultural sustainability. The road ahead requires continuous investment, strong partnerships, and a commitment to innovation. With the right combination of vigilance, adaptability, and resilience, Brazil’s FMD-free status can be a foundation for long-term prosperity, providing lasting benefits to its livestock industry, rural communities, and overall economy. In this pursuit, Brazil has the opportunity not only to safeguard its agricultural assets but also to enhance food security, public health, and environmental sustainability, shaping a brighter future for generations to come [15,16,30,32,56].
9. Conclusions
Achieving and maintaining FMD-free status without vaccination is a historic accomplishment for Brazil, carrying profound implications for its agricultural sector and position within the global market. This certification highlights Brazil’s commitment to rigorous biosecurity, enhanced disease surveillance, and sustainable livestock management practices. The transition to an FMD-free status is expected to increase international trade opportunities, reduce reliance on vaccination programs, and boost confidence among global trading partners, potentially leading to a higher economic return for Brazilian agribusiness.
However, this status also presents considerable challenges, particularly in managing the porous borders with neighboring countries where FMD may still be prevalent. Preventing outbreaks and controlling potential disease spread require robust and continuous monitoring systems, rapid diagnostic capabilities, and coordinated cross-border efforts. Furthermore, maintaining this certification will demand ongoing investment in veterinary infrastructure, personnel training, and biosecurity improvements to ensure that Brazil remains resilient against reintroduction risks.
In the long term, Brazil’s success in preserving FMD-free status without vaccination could serve as a model for other nations facing similar challenges. If managed effectively, this status will solidify Brazil’s position as a leader in animal health management while securing the sustainability and profitability of its livestock industries. The journey ahead will require steadfast commitment, but the rewards—both economic and health-related—hold substantial promise for Brazil’s agricultural future.
Conceptualization, F.M.S., A.d.M.C.L., F.M.S.M. and J.B.d.S.; methodology, F.M.S.; formal analysis, F.M.S., A.d.M.C.L., F.M.S.M. and J.B.d.S.; data curation, F.M.S., A.d.M.C.L., F.M.S.M. and J.B.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.S., A.d.M.C.L., F.M.S.M. and J.B.d.S.; writing—review and editing, F.M.S.; supervision, F.M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
The authors are grateful to CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), FAPESPA (Fundação Amazônia de Amparo a Estudos e Pesquisas do Estado do Pará), CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; finance code: 001 and PROPESP-UFPA (Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação da Universidade Federal do Pará) for paying the publication fee for this article via the Programa Institucional de Apoio à Pesquisa (PAPQ/2023–2024).
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
![View Image - Figure 1. Ref. [15]: Geographical organization for zonification (26 Brazilian states and 1 Federal district). Bloco I: Acre (AC) Rondônia (RO); Bloco II: Amazonas (AM), Amapá (AP), Pará (PA), and Roraima (RR); Bloco III: Alagoas (AL), Ceará (CE), Maranhão (MA), Paraíba (PB), Pernambuco (PE), Piauí (PI), and Rio Grande do Norte (RN); Bloco IV: Bahia (BA), Distrito Federal (DF), Espírito Santo (ES), Goiás (CO), Minas Gerais (MG), Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Sergipe (SE), São Paulo (SP), and Tocantins (TO); Bloco V: Mato Grosso (MT), Mato Grosso do Sul (MS), Paraná (PR), Rio Grande do Sul (RS), and Santa Catarina (SC).](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/2/4Zlib?_a=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&_s=VuBpO8l1ADjQicy7PyAz1%2FcTeTc%3D "View Image - Figure 1. Ref. [15]: Geographical organization for zonification (26 Brazilian states and 1 Federal district). Bloco I: Acre (AC) Rondônia (RO); Bloco II: Amazonas (AM), Amapá (AP), Pará (PA), and Roraima (RR); Bloco III: Alagoas (AL), Ceará (CE), Maranhão (MA), Paraíba (PB), Pernambuco (PE), Piauí (PI), and Rio Grande do Norte (RN); Bloco IV: Bahia (BA), Distrito Federal (DF), Espírito Santo (ES), Goiás (CO), Minas Gerais (MG), Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Sergipe (SE), São Paulo (SP), and Tocantins (TO); Bloco V: Mato Grosso (MT), Mato Grosso do Sul (MS), Paraná (PR), Rio Grande do Sul (RS), and Santa Catarina (SC).")
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Ref. [15]: Geographical organization for zonification (26 Brazilian states and 1 Federal district). Bloco I: Acre (AC) Rondônia (RO); Bloco II: Amazonas (AM), Amapá (AP), Pará (PA), and Roraima (RR); Bloco III: Alagoas (AL), Ceará (CE), Maranhão (MA), Paraíba (PB), Pernambuco (PE), Piauí (PI), and Rio Grande do Norte (RN); Bloco IV: Bahia (BA), Distrito Federal (DF), Espírito Santo (ES), Goiás (CO), Minas Gerais (MG), Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Sergipe (SE), São Paulo (SP), and Tocantins (TO); Bloco V: Mato Grosso (MT), Mato Grosso do Sul (MS), Paraná (PR), Rio Grande do Sul (RS), and Santa Catarina (SC).
![View Image - Figure 2. Ref. [15]: Timeline of the transition of health status. A: implementation of previously agreed commitments and actions; B: communication to WOAH in May and suspension of vaccination in June; C: seroepidemiological surveillance; D: recognition by MAPA and forwarding of claim to WOAH; E: evaluations and recognition by WOAH. (° Sem = semester).](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/4/4Zlib?_a=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&_s=4OpdXiSh%2BXfnmj1bgPwIRIp%2Fbhw%3D "View Image - Figure 2. Ref. [15]: Timeline of the transition of health status. A: implementation of previously agreed commitments and actions; B: communication to WOAH in May and suspension of vaccination in June; C: seroepidemiological surveillance; D: recognition by MAPA and forwarding of claim to WOAH; E: evaluations and recognition by WOAH. (° Sem = semester).")
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Ref. [15]: Timeline of the transition of health status. A: implementation of previously agreed commitments and actions; B: communication to WOAH in May and suspension of vaccination in June; C: seroepidemiological surveillance; D: recognition by MAPA and forwarding of claim to WOAH; E: evaluations and recognition by WOAH. (° Sem = semester).
References
1. Menezes, T.C.; Ferreira Filho, J.B.; Countryman, A.M. Potential Economic Impacts of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Brazil: A Case Study for Mato Grosso and Paraná. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc.; 2023; 2, pp. 481-496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jaa2.73]
2. Moraes, M.P.; Los Santos, T.; Koster, M.; Turecek, T.; Wang, H.; Andreyev, V.G.; Grubman, M.J. Enhanced Antiviral Activity against Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus by a Combination of Type I and II Porcine Interferons. J. Virol.; 2007; 81, pp. 7124-7135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02775-06]
3. Marschik, T.; Kopacka, I.; Stockreiter, S.; Schmoll, F.; Hiesel, J.; Höflechner-Pöltl, A.; Käsbohrer, A.; Pinior, B. The Epidemiological and Economic Impact of a Potential Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in Austria. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2021; 13, 594753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.594753] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33521078]
4. Marschik, T.; Kopacka, I.; Stockreiter, S.; Schmoll, F.; Hiesel, J.; Höflechner-Pöltl, A.; Käsbohrer, A.; Conrady, B. What Are the Human Resources Required to Control a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in Austria?. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2021; 28, 727209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.727209] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34778427]
5. Conrady, B.; Mortensen, S.; Nielsen, S.S.; Houe, H.; Calvo-Artavia, F.F.; Ellis-Iversen, J.; Boklund, A. Simulation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Spread and Effects of Mitigation Strategies to Support Veterinary Contingency Planning in Denmark. Pathogens; 2023; 12, 435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12030435] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36986357]
6. Cardenas, N.C.; Lopes, F.P.N.; Machado, A.; Maran, V.; Trois, C.; Machado, F.A.; Machado, G. Modeling Foot-and-Mouth Disease Dissemination in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Control Measures. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2024; 11, 1468864. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1468864] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39564186]
7. Naranjo, J.; Cosivi, O. Elimination of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in South America: Lessons and challenges. Philos Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci.; 2013; 368, 20120381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0381] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23798699]
8. Mayen, F.L. Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Brazil and Its Control—An Overview of Its History, Present Situation and Perspectives for Eradication. Vet. Res. Commun.; 2003; 27, pp. 137-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022863221356] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718507]
9. Taques, C.B.; Coelho, L.C.; Barbosa-Júnior, H.V.; de Sá, M.E.P.; de Castro, M.B.; de Melo, C.B. Challenges to and Advancements of the Official Veterinary Service of the Federal District, Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Med.; 2021; 43, e003221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29374/2527-2179.bjvm003221]
10. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J.; 2009; 26, pp. 91-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19490148]
11. Bosso, F.B.; Jayme, V.S.; Teixeira, W.F.P.; Souza, G.R.L. Multicriteria Analysis Model for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Risk Classification in the State of Goiás—Brazil. Cien. Rur.; 2023; 53, e20220669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20220669]
12. Amaral, T.B.; Gond, V.; Tran, A. Mapping the Likelihood of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Introduction along the Border Between Brazil and Paraguay. Braz. Agric. Res.; 2016; 51, pp. 661-670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2016000500029]
13. Rivera, A.M.; Sanchez-Vazquez, M.J.; Pituco, E.M.; Buzanovsky, L.P.; Martini, M.; Cosivi, O. Advances in the Eradication of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in South America: 2011–2020. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2023; 9, 1024071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1024071] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36699326]
14. Ferrer-Miranda, E.; Fonseca-Rodríguez, O.; Albuquerque, J.; Almeida, E.C.; Cristino, C.T.; Santoro, K.R. Assessment of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Surveillance System in Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med.; 2022; 205, 105695. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105695] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35772240]
15. Brazil. Brazil. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Surveillance Plan/Secretariat of Animal and Plant Health. Brasilia: MAPA/AECS. 2020. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sanidade-animal-e-vegetal/saude-animal/programas-de-saude-animal/febre-aftosa/24PlanoVigilFA2020EN.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
16. Brazil. Brazil. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply. Contingency Plan for FMD-Actical and Operation Levels—Animal Health Emergency Declaration and Management. 2020. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sanidade-animal-e-vegetal/saude-animal/arquivos-das-publicacoes-de-saude-animal/Brazil_FMD_Contigency_plan_2020_final.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
17. Brazil. Brazil. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply. National Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention and Eradication Program—PNEFA. Strategic Plan—2017–2026. 2017. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sanidade-animal-e-vegetal/saude-animal/programas-de-saude-animal/febre-aftosa/vacinacao/PNEFA_Plano_Estratgico_2017_2026verso2017ingles.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
18. WOAH—World Organization for Animal Health. WOAH Technical Disease Card: Foot and Mouth Disease. Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/document/oie-technical-disease-card-foot-and-mouth-disease/ (accessed on 25 July 2024).
19. World Organization for Animal Health. Foot and Mouth Disease. Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/disease/foot-and-mouth-disease/ (accessed on 25 July 2024).
20. Official Disease Status—WOAH—World Organization for Animal Health. Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/animal-health-and-welfare/official-disease-status/ (accessed on 25 July 2024).
21. World Organization for Animal Health. Application SOP Standard Operating Procedure for Official Recognition of Animal Health Status and for the Endorsement of Official Control Programs of Members. 2023; Available online: https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2023/07/a-sop-application-woah.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
22. World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). Terrestrial Animal Health Code CHAPTER 8.8. Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus. Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm (accessed on 25 July 2024).
23. Menezes, T.C.; Countryman, A.M.; de Souza Ferreira Filho, J.B.; Ferreira, F. Economic Assessment of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreaks in Brazil. Q Open; 2022; 2, qoac028. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoac028]
24. Seitzinger, A.H.; Garner, M.G.; Bradhurst, R.; Roche, S.; Breed, A.C.; Capon, T.; Miller, C.; Tapsuwan, S. FMD Vaccine Allocation and Surveillance Resourcing Options for a Potential Australian Incursion. Aust. Vet. J.; 2022; 100, pp. 550-561. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/avj.13195]
25. Garner, M.G.; East, I.J.; Stevenson, M.A.; Sanson, R.L.; Rawdon, T.G.; Bradhurst, R.A.; Roche, S.E.; Van Ha, P.; Kompas, T. Early Decision Indicators for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreaks in Non-Endemic Countries. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2016; 3, 109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00109]
26. Pharo, H.J. Foot-and-Mouth Disease: An Assessment of the Risks Facing New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J.; 2002; 50, pp. 46-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2002.36250] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16032210]
27. Iriarte, M.V.; Gonzáles, J.L.; de Freitas Costa, E.; Gil, A.D.; de Jong, M.C.M. Main Factors Associated with Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Infection During the 2001 FMD Epidemic in Uruguay. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2023; 10, 1070188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1070188] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36816185]
28. Zonta, R.; Galana, M.Z.; Zepeda, J.; Perini, F.B.; Fairall, L.R.; Pinto, F.K.K.S.; Andrade, M.P.; Eloi, B.M.; Silveira, J.P.M.; Siqueira, E.F. et al. Supporting a Rapid Primary Care Response to Emerging Communicable Disease Threats with PACK (Practical Approach to Care Kit) in Florianópolis, Brazil. BMJ Glob. Health; 2024; 9, e013815. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013815]
29. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)World Health Organization (WHO)Pan American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Center (PANAFTOSA). Action Plan Hemispheric Program for the Eradication of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (PHEFA) 2021–2025. 2022; Available online: https://www.paho.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/phefa-action-plan-21-25-english.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
30. WOAH—World Organization for Animal Health. Terrestrial Manual Online Access—Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals 2021. Chapter 3.1.8. Foot and Mouth Disease (Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus). Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-manual-online-access/ (accessed on 25 July 2024).
31. World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) Formerly the Office International des Epizooties (OIE). Guidelines for Animal Disease Control. 2014; Available online: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/A_Guidelines_for_Animal_Disease_Control_final.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
32. World Organization Animal Health (WOAH). Application of Compartmentalization. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 4.5 OIE—Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 2022; Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_application_compartment.htm#article_application_compartment (accessed on 25 July 2024).
33. González Gordon, L.; Porphyre, T.; Muhanguzi, D.; Muwonge, A.; Boden, L.; Bronsvoort, B.M.C. A Scoping Review of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Risk, Based on Spatial and Spatio-temporal Analysis of Outbreaks in Endemic Settings. Transbound. Emerg. Dis.; 2022; 69, pp. 3198-3215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14769] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36383164]
34. Rweyemamu, M.; Roeder, P.; Mackay, D.; Sumption, K.; Brownlie, J.; Leforban, Y.; Valarcher, J.F.; Knowles, N.J.; Saraiva, V. Epidemiological Patterns of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Worldwide. Transbound. Emerg. Dis.; 2008; 55, pp. 57-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1865-1682.2007.01013.x]
35. Aslan, M.; Alkheraije, K.A. The Prevalence of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Asia. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2023; 10, 1201578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1201578]
36. Belsham, G.J. Towards improvements in foot-and-mouth disease vaccine performance. Acta Vet. Scand.; 2020; 62, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13028-020-00519-1]
37. Knight-Jones, T.J.; Rushton, J. The Economic Impacts of Foot and Mouth Disease—What are they, How big are they and Where do they Occur?. Prev. Vet. Med.; 2013; 112, pp. 161-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013]
38. Baluka, S.A. Economic Effects of Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreaks along the Cattle Marketing chain in Uganda. Vet. World; 2016; 9, pp. 544-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2016.544-553]
39. Bowman, M.S. Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Status on Deforestation in Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado Municipalities between 2000 and 2010. J. Environ. Econ. Manag.; 2016; 75, pp. 25-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.08.003]
40. Serafini Poeta Silva, A.P.; Khan, K.; Corbellini, L.G.; Medeiros, A.A.; Silva, G.S. Compliance of Biosecurity Practices for Compartmentalization to Foot-Mouth Disease and Classical Swine Fever Viruses in Commercial Swine Companies from Southern Brazil. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2023; 10, 1125856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1125856] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36968468]
41. Costa, R.; Bessler, D.; Rosson, C.P. The Impacts of Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreaks on the Brazilian Meat Market. J. Food Distribut. Res.; 2015; 46, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.212987]
42. Rodrigues, A.R.A.; Oliveira, L.G.; Gatto, I.R.H.; Almeida, H.M.S.; Rossi, G.A.M.; Mechler, M.L.; Samara, S.I. Eradication Program of Foot and Mouth Disease in the State of São Paulo: Evaluation of Official Data Obtained Between 1997–2012. Anim. Sci. Bras.; 2017; 18, e40675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1089-6891v18e-40675]
43. Stenfeldt, C.; Arzt, J. The Carrier Conundrum; A Review of Recent Advances and Persistent Gaps Regarding the Carrier State of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus. Pathogens; 2020; 9, 167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9030167]
44. Arzt, J.; Fish, I.H.; Bertram, M.R.; Smoliga, G.R.; Hartwig, E.J.; Pauszek, S.J.; Holinka-Patterson, L.; Segundo, F.C.D.-S.; Sitt, T.; Rieder, E. et al. Simultaneous and Staggered Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Coinfection of Cattle. J. Virol.; 2021; 95, e0165021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01650-21] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34586864]
45. Sarry, M.; Bernelin-Cottet, C.; Michaud, C.; Relmy, A.; Romey, A.; Salomez, A.L.; Renson, P.; Contrant, M.; Berthaud, M.; Huet, H. et al. Development of a Primary Cell Model Derived from Porcine Dorsal Soft Palate for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Research and Diagnosis. Front. Microbiol.; 2023; 14, 1215347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1215347] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37840704]
46. Santos, D.V.D.; Silva, G.S.E.; Weber, E.J.; Hasenack, H.; Groff, F.H.S.; Todeschini, B.; Borba, M.R.; Medeiros, A.A.R.; Leotti, V.B.; Canal, C.W. et al. Identification of Foot and Mouth Disease Risk Areas Using a Multi-criteria Analysis Approach. PLoS ONE; 2017; 12, e0178464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178464] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28552973]
47. Corbellini, L.G.; Fernández, F.; Vitale, E.; Olmos, C.M.; Charbonnier, P.; Iriarte, M.V.; Riet-Correa, F. Shifting to Foot-and-Mouth Disease-free Status without Vaccination: Application of the PROMETHEE Method to Assist in the Development of a Foot-and-Mouth National Program in Uruguay. Prev. Vet. Med.; 2020; 181, 105082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105082]
48. Dürr, S.; Fasel-Clemenz, C.; Thür, B.; Schwermer, H.; Doherr, M.G.; Dohna, H.Z.; Carpenter, T.E.; Perler, L.; Hadorn, D.C. Evaluation of the Benefit of Emergency Vaccination in a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Free Country with Low Livestock Density. Prev. Vet. Med.; 2014; 113, pp. 34-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.10.015]
49. Paton, D.J.; Füssel, A.E.; Vosloo, W.; Dekker, A.; De Clercq, K. The Use of Serosurveys Following Emergency Vaccination, to Recover the Status of “Foot-and-Mouth Disease Free Where Vaccination Is Not Practiced”. Vaccine; 2014; 32, pp. 7050-7056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.064]
50. Moura, P.; Kihm, U.; Schudel, A.; Bergmann, I.; Buholzer, P. Why Foot-and-Mouth Disease-Free with Vaccination Should Be Equivalent to Foot-and-Mouth Disease-Free without Vaccination. Vet. Sci.; 2024; 11, 281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11060281]
51. Wong, C.L.; Yong, C.Y.; Ong, H.K.; Ho, K.L.; Tan, W.S. Advances in the Diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2020; 7, 477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00477] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32974392]
52. Cabezas, A.H.; Mapitse, N.J.; Tizzani, P.; Sanchez-Vazquez, M.J.; Stone, M.; Park, M.K. Analysis of Suspensions and Recoveries of Official Foot-and-Mouth Disease Free Status of WOAH Members Between 1996 and 2020. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2022; 9, 1013768. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1013768]
53. Di Nardo, A.; Ferretti, L.; Wadsworth, J.; Mioulet, V.; Gelman, B.; Karniely, S.; Scherbakov, A.; Ziay, G.; Özyörük, F.; Parlak, Ü. et al. Evolutionary and Ecological Drivers Shape the Emergence and Extinction of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol.; 2021; 38, pp. 4346-4361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab172] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34115138]
54. Turner, H.C.; Lauer, J.A.; Tran, B.X.; Teerawattananon, Y.; Jit, M. Adjusting for Inflation and Currency Changes Within Health Economic Studies. Value Health; 2019; 22, pp. 1026-1032. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.021]
55. Barratt, A.S.; Rich, K.M.; Eze, J.I.; Porphyre, T.; Gunn, G.J.; Stott, A.W. Framework for Estimating Indirect Costs in Animal Health Using Time Series Analysis. Front. Vet. Sci.; 2019; 6, 190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00190]
56. Caporale, V.; Giovannini, A.; Zepeda, C. Surveillance Strategies for Foot and Mouth Disease to Prove Absence of Disease and Absence of Viral Circulation. Rev. Sci. Tech.; 2012; 31, pp. 747-759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20506/rst.31.3.2156] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23520730]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; André de Medeiros Costa Lins
; Janayna Barroso dos Santos; Fernanda Monik Silva Martins