Gauging public sentiments toward foot-and-mouth disease outbreak control: A scoping review 2003–2022

Abstract

Abstract Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly transmissible viral infection of cloven-hoofed animals. As part of a larger programme of research directed towards preparing Australia for an FMD incursion, this scoping literature review aimed to identify and understand public discourses surrounding the FMD control measures of culling, disposal and vaccination in similar jurisdictions. We systematically searched five key databases for studies published in academic journals from January 1st, 2003 to December 31st, 2022 examining public sentiment towards FMD control measures in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia. Our review was reliant on the UK 2001 FMD outbreak as most papers related to this outbreak where culling and not vaccination was used as the main control, and papers from other countries made comparisons to this outbreak. There were no relevant papers found for Canada. A principal finding for the other three settings was that limited culling of FMD infected animals, based on a risk assessment by a veterinarian, was broadly considered an acceptable intervention. Public controversy arises when determining the size and scope of, and rationale for culling, and when control measures are mismanaged by the authorities. Extensive culling and disposal activities shown to alter the rhythm and cycle of interactions between farmers and their livestock, cause animal suffering and harm people’s sense of place and identity. Conversely, published studies of public and stakeholder sentiments are positive towards the use of FMD vaccination to prevent or control outbreaks. Our analysis revealed four key themes examining the relationship between the authorities and individuals and FMD impacted communities: conflicting risk perceptions; a knowledge divide between ‘expert’ (epidemiological) knowledge and local knowledge; poor communication by the authorities; and the erosion of public trust. Also evident in published studies examining FMD-related public discourses are concepts of fairness for animals, the importance of responsibility sharing and community concern for animal welfare and environmental health. These findings suggest that public support for culling cannot be assumed. To this end, FMD control policies should be socially responsible and justifiable, accounting for shared human and nonhuman interests, both epidemiologically and ethically. One Health impact statement Effective control policies and communication by government authorities during a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak require an understanding of public discourses surrounding FMD control measures of culling, disposal and vaccination. This scoping review examines public discourse on FMD across four nations, chosen for their similar industry practices, emergency animal disease (EAD) control measures and veterinary public health systems. Scholars from different academic disciplines show that when culling becomes extensive, there are serious social and human health consequences, unnecessary animal suffering and death, and breaches in the human-livestock relationship. Environmental harms occur when authorities ignore local expertise on farming and veterinary practices, environmental conditions and livestock behaviour. From a One Health perspective, understanding people’s attitudes towards the approaches used to manage an FMD outbreak can support informed and targeted EAD responses by promoting local practices and environments that prioritise ways to sustain interspecies communities.

Keywords

• public attitudes
• animal destruction and disposal
• control measures
• emergency animal disease
• foot-and-mouth disease
• vaccination