United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Importation of Fresh 

Beef from Northern 

Argentina

Environmental Assessment, 

April 2014
Importation of Fresh Beef from 

Northern Argentina

Environmental Assessment, 

April 2014

Agency Contact:

Dr. Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff Veterinarian 

Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff 

National Center for Import and Export 

Veterinary Services

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Rd. Unit 38

Riverdale, MD 20737

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S 

TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over 

others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of 

any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report 

factually on available data and to provide specific information.
Table of Contents

I. Need for the Action................................................................................................................................ 4

A. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 4

B. Need.................................................................................................................................................. 5

II. Alternatives........................................................................................................................................... 5

A. No Action .......................................................................................................................................... 6

B. Preferred Alternative........................................................................................................................ 6

III. Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................. 9

A. No Action .......................................................................................................................................... 9

B. Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................................... 10

FMD Situation in Northern Argentina.............................................................................................. 10

FMD and the slaughter processing .................................................................................................. 13

Regulatory Control of FMD.............................................................................................................. 14

Interspecies Transmission of FMD................................................................................................... 15

Environmental Fate of FMD............................................................................................................. 18

Public Health.................................................................................................................................... 21

IV. Other Environmental Issues............................................................................................................... 21

A. Environmental Justice and the Preferred Alternative .................................................................... 21

B. Protection of Children and the Preferred Alternative .................................................................... 22

C. Threatened and Endangered Species and the Preferred Alternative......................................... 22

D. Potential Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................... 23

V. Listing of Agencies Consulted ............................................................................................................. 24

VI. References.......................................................................................................................................... 25
4

I. Need for the Action

A. Introduction

The importation of livestock and animal products is prohibited except under

certain circumstances from specific areas, as stated in Title 9 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) § 94. These restrictions are designed to prevent the

introduction of a number of animal diseases including foot-and-mouth 

disease (FMD). In 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), established rules for 

recognizing regions, rather than only countries, for the purpose of importation 

of livestock and livestock products into the United States (9 CFR 92.2).

This action was designed to facilitate trade while minimizing the risk of the 

introduction of foreign animal disease to the United States.

Argentina submitted an official request to APHIS to export fresh (chilled or 

frozen) beef under certain conditions from a region in Argentina (referred to 

as Northern Argentina) located North of Patagonia South and Patagonia 

North B. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recognizes the 

areas of North Central Argentina including the Cordon Fronterizo as FMD 

free with vaccination and the areas including the region of Patagonia (North 

B and South) and the summer pastures of Calingasta Valleys in the province 

of San Juan as FMD free without vaccination. The last outbreak of FMD in 

Northern Argentina occurred in 2006. Consistent with U.S. regulations,

APHIS conducted a risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of FMD 

introduction into the United States through the importation of fresh (chilled or 

frozen) beef under certain conditions from Northern Argentina. The findings 

of that document are summarized and incorporated by reference into this 

environmental assessment (EA).

FMD is an acute, highly contagious viral disease that primarily affects 

cloven-hoofed animals. FMD may affect humans; however, that occurrence

is rare (USDA-APHIS, 2014). All cloven-hoofed animals including cattle, 

sheep, goats, deer, buffalo, and swine are susceptible to FMD. The death rate

from this disease is usually low; however, the rate of illness is very high in 

susceptible animals, and clinical signs during the acute phase of the infection 

can result in costly losses in meat and milk production. The disease is 

characterized by vesicles that develop in the hooves and mouth areas. FMD 

is transmitted to susceptible animals through exposure to the active virus. 

Transmission may occur through inhalation of airborne droplets (primarily

from animals in close contact) through direct contact (such as ingestion, 

sexual transmission, mucous membrane discharge from the eyes, nose or 

mouth, or from skin or mucous membrane abrasions), or through indirect 

exposure (such as feed, drinking water, equipment, animal products, human 

clothing, transportation vehicles). Exclusion of this disease from the United 
5

States is particularly important in that the virus responsible for this disease is 

highly contagious and can survive in the environment for extended periods of

time. Previous outbreaks of FMD in the United States have been very costly

to contain and eradicate. The United States reported the last FMD outbreak in 

1929.

APHIS conducted site visits to Argentina in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2013. 

Specific visits to Northern Argentina occurred in 2005, 2006, and 2013. Based 

upon the results of the the risk assessment, APHIS has determined that the 

combination of Argentina’s legal framework, animal health infrastructure, 

movement and border controls, diagnostic capabilities, surveillance programs, 

and emergency response capacity provides a comprehensive system with 

redundant safeguards that are sufficient to detect, report, prevent, control, and 

eradicate FMD outbreaks within the boundaries of Northern Argentina. 

Consequently, APHIS concludes that while Northern Argentina cannot be 

considered free of FMD because it vaccinates against it, the likelihood of 

introduction of FMD virus (FMDV) into the United States via fresh (chilled or 

frozen) beef from Northern Argentina subject to specified mitigations and 

conditions of entry, including maturation and deboning, is low. 

B. Need

In response to an official request from Argentina and in accordance with 

relevant U.S. statutes, regulations, and agreements, APHIS has reviewed the

issues related to importation of fresh, maturated, and deboned beef 

susceptible to FMD from Northern Argentina. The preparation of this EA 

complies with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 4321-4327, its implementing regulations, and Executive Order 12114, 

“Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.” The issue of

potential environmental risks associated with an outbreak of FMD in the

United States resulting from imported animals and animal products is of great

concern to APHIS. Characterization of the disease risk potential and 

adequate mitigation measures are critical to excluding this disease from the 

United States.

II. Alternatives

This EA analyzes potential environmental consequences of allowing the

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen), maturated, and deboned beef 

originating in Northern Argentina under certain conditions. The two possible

alternatives considered in this EA are (1) the current recognition of Northern 

Argentina as an FMD-affected region (no action), and (2) authorization to 

import fresh (chilled or frozen), maturated, and deboned beef originating in 

Northern Argentina under certain conditions (preferred alternative). The
6

issues of potential environmental impacts associated with the disease risks of

each alternative are discussed in section 3, Environmental Consequences of 

the Alternatives.

A. No Action

The No Action Alternative is defined as continuation of the current sanitary 

regulation of importation of animals and animal products from Northern

Argentina. This alternative would involve continuation of the prohibition of

the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef that originates in Northern 

Argentina. The lack of any changes in conditions for the entry of commercial 

shipments of fresh beef from Northern Argentina maintains overall disease

risks at the status quo. 

B. Preferred Alternative

Under the Preferred Alternative, Northern Argentina would be allowed to

export fresh, maturated, and deboned beef to the United States, under certain 

specified conditions. After conducting a risk assessment in connection with 

Argentina’s request, APHIS has determined that fresh, maturated and 

deboned beef can be safely imported from Northern Argentina provided that 

certain specified requirements are met. The Preferred Alternative is designed 

to maintain sanitary security in the United States while facilitating trade with 

Argentina. 

The conclusions of the risk assessment for Northern Argentina (USDA–

APHIS, 2014) are summarized for each regionalization factor below.

1

 

(1) Argentina has made significant improvements to its veterinary

infrastructure since FMD outbreaks in Argentina in 2000-2001. 

Based upon site visits and documentation reviews, APHIS considers 

Argentina’s Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria 

(SENASA) to have sufficient legal authority to carry out official 

disease control, eradication, and quarantine activities. In addition, 

APHIS is confident that in the unlikely event of another outbreak, 

reporting would be prompt and transparent.

(2) The last FMD outbreak in Northern Argentina was detected in 

February 2006 near the border with Paraguay. There is no evidence 

 

1 The 11 factors (defined by APHIS as necessary to regionalization as described in 9 CFR § 

92.2(b)) are met by Northern Argentina. In 2012, APHIS consolidated the 11 factors into 8 

factors. However, since the evaluation of Northern Argentina started before 2012, and the 

topics addressed by the 11 factors are contained within the 8 factors, this report follows the 

11 factor format. 
7

to suggest that FMDV is present in this region since 2006. 

(3) Argentina is bordered by Paraguay to the north, Bolivia to the 

northwest, Uruguay and Brazil to the northeast, and Chile to the 

west. APHIS only recognizes Chile and the State of Santa Catarina, 

Brazil to be FMD-free and has evaluated the Patagonia Region for 

FMD freedom. APHIS considers the regions along the northern 

borders with Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay to constitute a potential 

source of vulnerability for Argentina as there is a potential risk of 

reintroduction of FMD from those countries; however, SENASA has 

adopted several measures specifically aimed at preventing the 

introduction of FMDV from these countries. APHIS believes that 

these enhancements in border control activities and infrastructure

provide adequate monitoring and control of the disease in the event of 

a potential introduction.

(4) Argentina has an active disease control program at the national and 

local levels in Northern Argentina sufficient to respond quickly to 

FMD emergencies through quarantine and testing of suspicious 

premises. 

(5) Argentina’s FMD vaccine production program is conducted in 

accordance with international standards. The structure and 

application of the vaccination program, in conjunction with 

movement controls, fosters close interaction between veterinary 

officials and farmers and facilitates oversight of animal populations 

and vaccine coverage in the field.

(6) Most of the Argentine border is protected by natural barriers that help 

reduce the unrestricted flow of animals and animal products from 

areas of higher risk. Government movement control measures 

compensate in areas where natural barriers do not exist.

(7) Argentina has adequate controls at ports of entry for legal commercial 

and noncommercial importation of FMD-susceptible species and 

livestock products. Site visits to border control posts demonstrate 

adequate staffing levels, knowledge of requirements and procedures, 

professionalism, and efficiency.

(8) Argentina has a system designed to capture farm inventory, animal 

movement information, sanitary information, identification numbers, 

and control movements. The animal identification system is 

comprehensive and enables Argentina to comply with the U.S. 

certification requirements.

(9) Argentina has a surveillance system designed to estimate herd 

immunity of the vaccinated cattle population and to demonstrate the 
8

absence of FMDV circulation. Ongoing surveillance efforts are 

focused on the effectiveness of local vaccination campaign plans. In 

addition, Argentina regularly conducts additional studies to 

continually improve their surveillance system. As of November 

2013, more than 50 percent of the planned surveillance samples had 

been collected with two reactors identified, both of which were 

negative at confirmatory testing. 

(10) Argentina has one diagnostic laboratory for FMD in Buenos Aires. 

The laboratory was determined by APHIS to have sufficient capacity

to accurately diagnose FMD.

(11) Emergency response capabilities in Argentina are adequate. Local 

veterinary officials are well-trained in procedures to control and 

contain FMD outbreaks. Systems for notification and training ensure 

emergency preparedness and response with a legal framework to 

authorize needed actions.

Under the Preferred Alternative, certain requirements must be met to import 

fresh beef into the United States from Northern Argentina: 

 The beef comes from bovines that have been born, raised, and 

slaughtered in the export region.

 FMD has not been diagnosed in the export region within 12 months prior 

to exportation of the beef.

 The beef comes from bovines that originated on premises where FMD 

has not been present during the lifetime of any bovines that are 

slaughtered for export of meat to the United States.

 The beef comes from bovines moved directly from the premises of origin 

to the slaughtering establishment without any contact with other animals.

 The beef comes from bovines that received both ante-mortem and postmortem veterinary inspections, which include inspection of the head and 

feet, at the slaughtering establishment, with no evidence found of 

vesicular disease.

 The beef consists only of bovine parts that are, by standard practice, part 

of the animal's carcass that is placed in a chiller for maturation after 

slaughter. The bovine parts that may not be imported include all parts of 

the head, feet, hump, hooves, and internal organs.

 All bone and visually identifiable blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat.

 The beef has not been in contact with meat from regions other than the 

region of origin or those considered as FMD-free by APHIS (listed under 

9 CFR 94.1(a)(2)).

 The beef comes from carcasses that were allowed to maturate at 40 to 

50°F (4 to 10°C) for a minimum of 24 hours after slaughter and that 

reached a pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the end of the maturation 
9

period. Measurements for pH must be taken at the middle of both 

longissimus dorsi muscles. Any carcass in which the pH does not reach 

less than 6.0 may be allowed to maturate an additional 24 hours and be 

retested, and, if the carcass still has not reached a pH of less than 6.0 after 

48 hours, the beef from the carcass may not be exported to the United 

States.

 The establishment in which the bovines are slaughtered allows periodic 

on-site evaluation and subsequent inspection of its facilities, records, and 

operations by an APHIS representative.

 The beef meets additional certification requirements under 9 CFR 

94.11(c). Generally speaking, these restrictions (1) prohibit the exportapproved slaughter establishment from receiving FMD-susceptible 

animals or animal products that were transported or commingled with 

animals or animal products from regions that APHIS does not recognize 

as FMD-free and (2) require exporting slaughter establishments to be 

approved by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. In 

addition, an official veterinary official of the government of the exporting 

region must certify on the foreign meat inspection certificate that all the

listed conditions have been met.

III. Environmental Consequences

A. No Action

The No Action Alternative would leave the current regulation of beef (no 

entry) from Northern Argentina unchanged. Under this alternative, Northern 

Argentina would continue to not be allowed to export FMD-susceptible fresh 

beef to the United States. 

The biological history and disease potential of FMD suggest that the 

continuation of the current regulations of specific beef from Northern 

Argentina would maintain the status quo with respect to impact on the human 

environment. As with most commodities, there is always some risk of

smuggling; however, the frequency is low due to the high punitive costs from 

noncompliance. Due to the high potential risks from disease associated with 

noncompliance, APHIS’ policy is to provide a strong deterrent. Therefore, 

APHIS keeps importers and shippers informed of its import regulations and 

of the penalties for inadequate compliance. The importer or shipper could be 

subject to civil penalties, criminal fines, jail sentences, and loss of revenue 

due to APHIS’ rejection of commodities, permit applications, and/or 

compliance agreements. A major tool for APHIS is the option to refuse 

entry, require treatment, or require destruction of infected or potentially 

infected cargo. All of these options are costly to the shipping line and 

exporter who must assume all costs for the delays and any treatments.
10

All of these measures provide strong incentive for full compliance with 

import regulations. Monitoring the rates of compliance with a phytosanitary

rule promulgated in 1998 revealed that proper compliance with those import 

requirements was achieved approximately 98 percent of the time (USDA–

APHIS, 2003). Comparable compliance is expected for any present or 

revised sanitary regulations related to the importation of fresh beef from 

Northern Argentina. 

B. Preferred Alternative

The environmental consequences from permitting imports of fresh beef from 

Northern Argentina are largely contingent upon the effectiveness of various 

mitigations and procedures to preclude exposure of Northern Argentina to 

FMDV and to preclude importation from Northern Argentina to the United 

States of fresh beef that could potentially be infected with FMDV. The risk

analysis (USDA–APHIS, 2014) of importing fresh beef from Northern 

Argentina evaluates the risk of the introduction and outbreak of FMD disease 

in the United States posed by such imports. While permitting exports from 

Northern Argentina is assumed to pose some theoretical risk of exposure 

beyond the No Action Alternative, APHIS has determined that such risk is

low and that fresh beef can be safely imported from Northern Argentina

provided that certain requirements are met. Findings of the risk analysis are

discussed in that document and are incorporated by reference herein.

Compliance with NEPA requires APHIS to consider all potential effects to 

the human environment from this rule. In addition to consideration of disease

issues related to livestock, this document analyzes characterization of the

potential effects to humans, wildlife, and environmental quality. The

information is presented by topics related to program requirements and

mitigative actions that affect potential disease risks associated with the 

importation of fresh, maturated, and deboned beef from Northern Argentina. 

This includes sections with issues related to the vaccinations, surveillance, 

the disease transmission mechanism as related to wildlife, and the persistence

of FMDV under various environmental conditions on or in environmental 

media such as in soil, in water, on plants, and on abiotic surfaces.

FMD Situation in Northern Argentina

a. FMD Transmission, Vaccination, and Safeguards

FMDV is the virus that causes FMD. FMDV is an Aphthovirus belonging to 

the Picornaviridae family. FMDV is a small virus that is very infectious, 

multiplying in and causing damage to cells throughout the body of

susceptible animals. The virus can survive in the environment for extended 
11

periods of time. FMD is an acute, highly contagious viral disease, mainly of

cloven-hoofed animals. All cloven-hoofed animals including cattle, sheep,

goats, deer, buffalo, and swine are susceptible to FMD. The major host 

species for FMDV is widely recognized to be domestic cattle. FMD in cattle 

is characterized by the formation of lesions on the feet and mouth, damage to 

the mucous membrane lining the gastrointestinal system, and high fever. 

Damage from FMDV also may occur to the heart muscle cells (particularly in

young animals). The death rate from this disease is usually low; however,

the rate of illness is very high in susceptible animals, and clinical signs 

during the acute phase of the infection can result in costly losses in meat and 

milk production. 

FMD is transmitted to susceptible animals through exposure to the active 

virus. Transmission may occur through inhalation of airborne droplets 

(primarily from animals in close contact), through direct contact (such as 

ingestion, sexual transmission, mucous membrane discharges from the eyes, 

nose or mouth, skin or mucous membrane abrasions), or through indirect 

exposure (such as feed, drinking water, equipment, animal products, human 

clothing, transportation vehicles). Infected meat, hides, and bones also can

carry the FMDV. Exclusion of this disease from the United States is 

particularly important in that the virus responsible for this disease is highly

contagious and can survive in the environment for extended periods of time. 

Previous outbreaks of FMD in the United States have been very costly to

contain and eradicate. The United States reported the last FMD outbreak in 

1929.

It is possible for animals to carry FMDV without appearing clinically ill 

under conditions such as recovery from clinical disease and undetected 

subclinical disease; nevertheless, reports of carrier animals infecting 

susceptible animals are extremely rare (WIN, 2001). Different strains

2

of 

FMD have different capacities to establish persistent infection, and the 

proportion of animals that become carriers following exposure to the virus 

varies depending on the severity of the challenge, but does not appear to be

influenced by the age or sex of the host (WIN, 2001). The establishment of 

carriers is reduced in endemic areas if routine vaccination is used. 

Vaccination does not cause animals to become FMDV carriers; properly

inactivated vaccine, when injected into animals, does not give rise to the 

carrier state (WIN, 2001).

Vaccination of cattle against FMD is mandatory in Northern Argentina 

except for the summer pastures of Calingasta Valleys in the province of San 

Juan and the Patagonia “North A” region. The National FMD Program 

provides for the systematic vaccination of bovines while other susceptible 

animals are vaccinated in strategic (e.g., emergency) situations. The 

 

2 A strain is a taxonomic subdivision of a micro-organism based on characteristic antigens or 

proteins.
12

vaccination strategy takes into consideration various geographic, 

epidemiological, and production characteristics including animal movements. 

A regionalization strategy is applied according to the ecological features, 

production types, and movement flow. Vaccination can only be performed 

by authorized personnel who are trained, registered, and accredited/audited 

by SENASA. 

Data obtained during the vaccinations are entered in a form called the 

“vaccination act” (acta de vacunación), which is completed by the official 

vaccinators after visiting each holding. Data collected throughout and at the 

end of the vaccination campaign include: (1) daily records of the number of 

animals vaccinated, including categories of animals vaccinated, time of 

vaccination, and compliance of premises with vaccination schedule, and (2) 

every 2 weeks from each local vaccination delivery center, the proportion of 

premises/establishments vaccinated and the proportion of vaccinated animals. 

Vaccination campaigns last for 60 days. Under Resolution 181/10, animals 

cannot be moved out of premises that have not completed the vaccination and 

registration of animals at the end of a vaccination cycle. Vaccination 

coverage rates have been more than 97 percent since 2001.

All FMD vaccine used within the territory is produced in Argentina under 

SENASA oversight. Production and quality control of the vaccine meet the 

requirements of the OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for 

Terrestrial Animals and with the recommendations of the OIE Reference 

Regional Center, Centro Panamericano de Fiebre Aftosa (PANAFTOSA). 

The tetravalent vaccine in use since 2001 is inactivated and contains an oiladjuvant that provides extended immunity (USDA-APHIS, 2014). SENASA 

uses vaccines containing the following serotypes: O1/Campos, A24/Cruzeiro, 

A/Argentina/2001 and C3/Indaial. All vials are identified with technical and 

manufacturer brand labels, a sequential number, and an official stamp stating 

the series and the expiration date. SENASA conducts audits of the cold chain 

at all stages. Trucks used for the transportation of the vaccines are equipped 

with temperature sensors to ensure a cold chain during transportation

(USDA-APHIS, 2014). The vaccine must be tested for quality and safety by 

the official SENASA laboratory. Quality control tests of each batch of the 

vaccine are conducted and strictly follow international standards, as set by 

the OIE.

The risk analysis associated with this proposed rulemaking concludes that 

Northern Argentina conducts its FMD vaccination programs appropriately 

and in accordance with international standards (USDA-APHIS, 2014). There 

is a system of controls to ensure compliance with vaccination calendars by 

matching vaccination records to movement permits and census data. 
13

b. FMD Surveillance

The epidemiological office of the National Animal Health Office in 

Argentina is responsible for the regulatory aspects, collection, and

assessments of animal health data. The general field office, the regional 

supervisors, and the local SENASA veterinarians are responsible for the 

operations. 

The last two outbreaks in Argentina were reported in 2003 and 2006. The 

2003 outbreak was detected in a local slaughterhouse near the Bolivian 

border. The 2006 outbreak was detected in the Northeast, in the province of 

Corrientes.

FMD has not been diagnosed in South America since the last outbreak 

reported in Paraguay in 2012 (USDA-APHIS, 2014). Effective FMD 

surveillance programs in the South America region are essential in the

prevention and containment of disease outbreaks. 

The primary objective of Argentina’s epidemiological surveillance activities 

is to search for and eradicate FMD. Argentina employs “active” and 

“passive” systems of surveillance. Passive surveillance—watching for any 

suspicion of FMD—in Argentina is bolstered by effective community 

education and involvement, while the bulk of active surveillance consists of 

the annual serological sampling of randomly selected animals and regular 

survey of higher-risk areas (USDA–APHIS, 2014). APHIS believes that the 

serological sampling design in Argentina is both valid and efficient, and the 

sampling coverage is adequate. Further, APHIS concludes that the 

serological sampling conducted in Argentina under the national serological 

sampling plan since the July 2000 outbreak is adequate to detect disease and 

identify and measure viral activity in the area. 

If FMD is detected, Argentine animal health authorities may respond to 

outbreaks by following a stamping out that involves the killing of susceptible

animals that were likely to have been exposed to the index case. SENASA 

will manage FMD outbreaks following their contingency plan, and a sanitary 

state of emergency will be declared with the accompanying quarantine and 

movement restrictions, reporting, and other sanitary measures (USDA–

APHIS, 2014). 

FMD and the slaughter processing

It is possible but extremely unlikely that FMDV could be spread by 

improperly immunized cattle. The Preferred Alternative would only allow 

importation into the United States of beef originating from bovines

slaughtered in the region of Northern Argentina. FMD related mitigations 
14

during the slaughter process will decrease the likelihood that beef could 

contain FMDV. 

Regulatory Control of FMD

Federal, State, and local veterinary authorities enforce the animal health laws 

in Argentina. SENASA establishes and enforces animal health regulations at 

the national level in Argentina to prevent the introduction and spread of 

animal pests and diseases. Argentina has instituted the National 

Identification System. Livestock movement controls are stringent. 

The severity of an FMD outbreak may be influenced by a government’s 

decisions such as reporting and notification delays. In 2000 and 2001,

Argentina did not provide a timely report of its FMD outbreaks. As noted in 

the risk analysis, however, Argentina subsequently reported the 2003 and 

2006 outbreaks to the international community promptly, followed its 

contingency plan, and limited the spread of disease. 

The establishment of effective surveillance and monitoring of susceptible 

livestock also is important in preventing and limiting FMD outbreaks. 

Argentina requires that all premises with agricultural animal production 

register with SENASA and obtain unique identification numbers that encode 

information about individual premises, and link to data on the health, test 

status, and movement of their animals. Animals are tracked from field to 

slaughter; slaughterhouses must be able to identify every supplier and trace 

all products intended for export, showing compliance with the requirements 

of SENASA and those of the destination country. The SENASA individual 

animal and premises identification system (Resolution 754/2006) is 

mandatory for all bovine and also for ovine destined to the European Union 

(USDA-APHIS, 2014).

To avoid disease introduction and spread into Argentina, Argentina operates 

domestic checkpoints; its international borders are monitored in a regional 

disease-control effort. Even so, disease incursions into Northern Argentina 

from adjacent countries have occurred. Border surveillance and biosecurity 

measures are in place to control the movement of people, animals, and goods 

as they enter the country. Imports of FMD-susceptible livestock from 

approved countries are quarantined and tested. Argentina participates with 

other South American governments in the Cuenca del Plata Agreement—a 

harmonized regional subprogram of the PANAFTOSA Hemispheric Plan for 

the Eradication of FMD—in reporting and responding to disease risks in 

neighboring countries. 

APHIS conducted site visits to Argentina in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 

2013 to verify and complement information provided by the Argentine 

authorities. Three of these visits were conducted in Northern Argentina 
15

(2005, 2006, and 2013). APHIS concludes that the risk of introducing FMD 

into the United States through the importation of fresh beef under certain 

conditions originating in the region of Northern Argentina is low (USDA–

APHIS, 2014). APHIS considers that Argentina’s SENASA possesses 

sufficient legal authority to carry out official prevention, control, and 

quarantine activities for animal health programs, and that it has demonstrated 

an infrastructure adequate for rapid detection of FMD and for carrying out 

surveillance and eradication programs (USDA–APHIS, 2014). 

Most of the Argentine border is protected by effective natural barriers that

reduce unrestricted flow of animals and animal products from areas of higher 

risk. Areas where there are no natural barriers have control mechanisms that

include mobile patrols and a permanent coordination between national and 

provincial entities to maintain a constant presence (National Border Police 

and other police authorities).

Interspecies Transmission of FMD

FMD is one of the most contagious animal diseases known (AVIS/OIE, 

2000); although rare, human cases have occurred. However, FMD is not 

considered zoonotic under natural conditions (Enserink, 2001; AVMA, 

2007). Natural infection with FMDV has been reported worldwide in animal 

families, including the Bovidai, Cervidai, Suidae, Tayasuidae, Camelidae, 

Giraffidae, Erinaceidae, Muridae, Elephantidae, Tapiridae, and Ursidae 

(Mouchantant et al., 2005). Transmission between susceptible cloven-hoofed 

wild and domesticated animals is possible and is known to have occurred 

only once in the United States in 1924 (Rhyan et al., 2006). The virus also

may be transmitted mechanically by humans and nonsusceptible animals, 

such as rodents and birds. 

There is no known treatment for FMD (AVMA, 2007). Severity of the 

disease and expression of symptoms can vary greatly, even within a species. 

Sheep are generally considered to be “carriers,” while swine are “amplifiers” 

and cattle are “indicators” (CIDRAP, 2007). Although occasionally FMD 

can be very destructive to wildlife populations (for example, the South 

African impala in the late 19th century, or mountain gazelles in Israel more 

recently (Shimshony et al., 1986; Thomson et al., 2003)), generally FMD in 

wildlife “results in a relatively mild disease from which the affected animals 

recover in a week or two. The significance of the disease for wildlife lies 

largely in the potential that cloven-hoofed wild animals have for transmitting 

the disease to domestic livestock . . .” (Thomson et al., 2003). 

Experts generally consider the transfer of FMD from wildlife to domestic 

animals to be unlikely. In most cases, it does not appear that FMD can long

survive independently of domesticated animals. FMD in wildlife appears to 

be an extension of the disease in livestock, with the exception of sub-Saharan 
16

Africa. Therefore, if FMD is eradicated from livestock in a region, it 

generally disappears from wildlife in the region (Thomson et al., 2003). 

There are several ways that the virus may be transferred between wildlife and 

susceptible livestock (USGS, 2001; WDNR, 2003)—

• exposure to infected saliva, feces, urine, milk, semen, meat, and meat 

byproducts of infected animals;

• exposure to viral particles carried via wind, animals, or on virtually any

object (farm equipment, hay, shoes, etc.);

• drinking from a common source of contaminated water; and

• exposure to raw or improperly cooked infected garbage.

APHIS considers that the livestock sampling conducted in Northern 

Argentina under the national serological sampling plan is adequate to detect 

disease and identify and measure viral activity in the export region (USDAAPHIS, 2014). 

If FMDV enters the United States, susceptible livestock and wildlife may be

potentially at risk of contracting and spreading the disease. North American

wildlife (including white-tailed deer and other deer species, feral pigs, bison, 

moose, antelope, peccaries, musk ox, caribou, sheep, and elk) are known to 

be susceptible to FMD and would likely be targeted for eradication in the

vicinity of FMD outbreaks (USGS, 2007a; USGS, 2007b). Loss of livestock, 

rare species, and habitat due to the culling process, the pollution of the

environment from mass carcass disposals, and increased danger to humans 

and animals from widespread disinfectant or other chemical uses are all likely

in the event of an FMD outbreak (Pinto, 2004).

“All cloven-hoofed animals and Camelidae . . . are susceptible to infection 

with FMD viruses but the facility with which different species and even

breeds of animals develop clinical disease varies . . . This variation is largely

quantified in the case of domestic animals but for most species of wildlife

their relative susceptibility is unknown . . . With a few exceptions, excretion 

and transmission of FMD by wildlife has not been studied in any detail. For

that reason much of what is currently accepted in that regard has been

extrapolated from what is known to occur in domestic species” (Thomson et 

al., 2003). It is difficult to diagnose FMD in wildlife because symptoms can

vary greatly. The disease tends to be subclinically expressed, and physical 

examinations of wild populations are difficult to carry out (Thomson et al., 

2003). 

However, despite the fact that several South American wildlife species are 

susceptible to FMD, their role in the epidemiology of FMD is considered to 

be insignificant. Research into FMD has determined that wildlife 

populations, including feral swine, do not play a significant role in the 

maintenance and transmission of FMD, and that contamination of domestic 

ruminants by wildlife is unlikely. Analysis and experience from FMD 
17

outbreaks indicate that adequate management of livestock will eradicate the 

disease (Moutou, 2005). Domesticated bovines are considered the primary 

reservoir for the FMD virus within South America.

a. The Export Region and Surrounding Countries

While FMDV can be transmitted over long distances and remain viable for 

up to 15 weeks under certain conditions (USDA–APHIS, 2014), the potential 

for transmission between wildlife and domestic livestock in Northern

Argentina is offset by strict national surveillance programs and both domestic 

and international animal movement controls (USDA–APHIS, 2014).

b. United States

The United States has retained an FMD-free status since 1929 (AVMA,

2007). Prohibition of importation of live ruminants and swine and their 

products from FMD-affected countries, and the avoidance of contact with 

livestock, zoo animals, and wildlife by returning travelers continues to be 

considered essential for preventing the introduction of FMD virus into the 

United States (AVMA, 2007). However, there is the potential for

interspecies transmission of FMD in the United States should infected meat 

be imported into the country.

For instance, in the event that FMD-contaminated beef was imported and 

disposed of in U.S. landfills, susceptible wildlife populations could be 

exposed and become infected. The rapidly growing white-tailed deer and 

feral pig populations in the United States are leading to increased foraging, 

scavenging, predation, and contact with these animals by domestic livestock 

populations; thus, infected species could be entirely wiped out or provide a

further source of infection (USGS, 2001; LDWF, 2007; ODA, 2007). 

Nonsusceptible animals and humans consuming or contacting the

contaminated meat could transfer the virus mechanically, as previously

discussed.

The United States has already battled FMD in wildlife populations. In

1924, in a section of Stanislaus National Forest, California, FMD became

established in deer (CDA, 1926). At the time of the outbreak it was 

impossible to gather the wild deer to determine the extent of infection. The

eradication effort, where all deer were either poisoned or shot within a 1,000-

square mile area of the national forest, took 2 years. Available literature does

not indicate that the wild deer ever re-infected cattle herds. The eradication

process was expensive, it restricted human and livestock access to the area,

and it angered people who were concerned with the well-being of the wild 

deer population. This is the only known occurrence of wildlife FMD 

infection in the United States, and, in 1929, the last outbreak of FMD in the

United States occurred in cattle.
18

APHIS cooperates with other Federal and State authorities in the detection 

and management of notifiable disease outbreaks in the United States. If 

susceptible wild species are exposed to FMD, Morgan et al. (2003) suggested

analyzing and possibly implementing the following measures in order to 

prevent the transmission of the disease to domestic livestock—

• lethal collection of wild animals for diagnostic testing,

• provisions for surveillance zone,

• the possibility of reducing the density of susceptible wildlife populations 

within an infected zone,

• long-term observation, and

• additional prevention and control measures, such as the closure of hunting

seasons and restriction of access to public lands by humans (because

humans can spread the virus via physical contact).

In the United States, APHIS has a robust national emergency program in 

place for exotic/invasive pest detection and Federal response. 

c. Ongoing Wildlife Research

In the event of an FMD outbreak, the risk to wildlife will depend on the 

distribution, density and biology of species in the affected location, the level 

of exposure to infected animals, and existing environmental conditions (Corn 

and Fischer, 2001). In order to develop more effective control of FMD, more

needs to be understood about the epidemiology of the disease and the role of

possible wildlife reservoirs.

USDA–Agricultural Research Service, in association with the Department of 

Homeland Security and universities, is in the process of developing a new

FMD vaccine that is not only considered affordable, but can be manufactured

in the United States without using infectious FMD materials. A private 

company is currently developing the vaccine for production. The vaccine

will allow for improved diagnosis and response (USDA–ARS, 2013).

Environmental Fate of FMD

FMDV may persist in the external environment for extended periods of time

whenever susceptible animals in close contact are exposed to the virus. For a

virus to become freely circulating, it must be able to persist in the

environment either inside or outside of the host long enough to infect a 

susceptible host. The Cottral study (1969) reports the survival time of 

FMDV on or within various contaminated objects at ambient temperatures, as 

shown in table 1.
19

Table 1. Survival Time of FMD Virus on Various Contaminated Objects At 

Ambient Temperatures.

Contaminated Objects Weeks of Survival

Soil, S–W 3 1–21

Barn dirt; Barn sand 1–10

Road sand; garden soil 1.5–4

Manure, S–W 1–24

Sewage, S–W 3–15

Barns (brick, adobe, wood), S–W 2–11

Walls, brick and plaster 2–4

Soil, water, lichens 4

Pasture plants, S–W 1–7

Haystack, S–W 4–29

Feed sacks; bran 20

Meal 7

Vegetables 1

Water 3–14

Houseflies 10

Ticks 15–20

Wool, sheep 2

Hair, cattle 4–6

Glass surface 2

Clothing and footwear, S–W 4 3–9, 14

Meat cloth (at 4 oC) 6

In addition to the objects listed in table 1, many other contaminated items 

have been suspected as the source of FMD outbreaks, including various 

domestic or wild animals and birds, humans, truck tires, and even postal 

materials. The survival time of FMDV is shorter for the virus in the 

environment than for the virus in animals. Sunlight, temperature, pH 

changes, relative humidity, and the dilution effect of rain and melting snow 

 

3 S–W, 1–21: summer 1 week, winter 21 weeks.

4 Cotton garments, leather shoes, rubber boots.
20

all affect virus survival; however, sunlight and ultraviolet radiation have little

effect on virus persistence (Pharo, 2002). Longer survival times for FMDV 

on objects would be expected at the low temperatures associated with high 

altitudes, or the arctic regions, than at sea level or in the tropical regions. 

Although temperatures above 50 °C destroy most infectivity, it is likely that a 

small proportion of the virus particles are relatively resistant to the effects of 

heat and pH in most populations (Pharo, 2002). 

The effect of temperature and pH on time for 90 percent virus inactivation is 

shown in table 2 and table 3, respectively, based on findings from the 

Bachrach et al. (1975) study. There also is the potential for FMDV to be 

disseminated over considerable distances by aerosols (Cottral, 1969). In 

aerosols, FMDV survives best when the relative humidity exceeds 70 percent 

and there is a critical humidity level of 55 to 60 percent, below which 

survival is poor (Pharo, 2002). Based on available scientific data, the 

survival of residual FMDV in the external environment following eradication 

of an outbreak of FMD in susceptible animals would be expected to persist 

no longer than 8 months.

Table 2. Effect of Temperature (at pH 7.5) On Time for 90 Percent FMDV 

Inactivation.

Temperature Inactivation Time (90 percent)

61 oC 30 seconds

55 oC 2 minutes

49 oC 1 hour

43 oC 7 hours

37 oC 21 hours

20 oC 11 days

4

oC 18 weeks

Table 3. Effect of pH (at 4 oC) On Time for 90 Percent FMDV Inactivation.

ph Inactivation Time (90 percent)

10.0 14 hours

9.0 1 week

8.0 3 weeks

7.0–7.5 >5 weeks

6.5 14 hours

6.0 1 minute

5.0 1 second
21

Public Health

FMD may affect humans; however, its occurrence is quite rare. The number 

of cases reported worldwide is so small when compared with the number of 

persons exposed to FMD that it is generally not considered a threat to 

humans. FMDV has been isolated and typed in only 40 patients during the 

last century. Symptoms in humans are mostly mild and mainly include fever 

and blisters on the hands, feet, mouth, and tongue. Patients usually recover 

within a week after the last blister formation (USDA–APHIS, 2014). 

Perhaps more importantly, an FMD outbreak of the magnitude observed in 

the United Kingdom can result in severe psychosocial effects on farmers and 

farming communities. Farmers and their families can suffer from grief over 

losing animals (in some cases blood lines kept over many generations), as 

well as loss of control over their lives due to movement restrictions, 

disruptions in community life, and short- and long-term stress over their 

financial future. Researchers from Lancaster University in the United 

Kingdom conducted a new study on the social consequences of FMD in the 

Cumbria community. The study revealed high rates of depression, alcohol 

consumption, and mortality among farmers during the crisis (USDA–APHIS, 

2014). 

IV. Other Environmental Issues 

A. Environmental Justice and the Preferred Alternative

 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires each Federal 

agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States and its territories and possessions. Importation of fresh, maturated, 

and deboned beef from Northern Argentina, under the Preferred Alternative,

is not expected to substantially affect the condition of minority livestock

producers in the United States. Most of the modest impact-generating 

compliance actions under the Preferred Alternative will occur outside of the 

United States, and none has any disproportionate adverse effects on minority 

or low-income populations in the United States. Although one could design 

scenarios involving the introduction of FMD to the United States, these are 

primarily remote and hypothetical. Even if such scenarios could occur, their 

impact to minority and low-income populations would be expected to be 

negligible.
22

B. Protection of Children and the Preferred Alternative

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks,” requires each Federal agency to address 

disproportionate environmental health risks or safety risks to children that 

arise in the course of agency policies, programs, activities, and standards. 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative does not pose greater risks to 

children than to other parts of the affected populations. Control of the risks 

associated with ruminant and ruminant product importation depends 

primarily upon adherence to sanitary requirements. Proper adherence will 

remove the potential for adverse effects to humans and make other 

commodity introduction-related risks remote and of very low concern in 

regard to the protection of children. 

C. Threatened and Endangered Species and the 

Preferred Alternative 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations 

require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. APHIS 

considered the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on threatened 

and endangered species and designated critical habitat. There are six listed 

ungulate species that are potentially susceptible to FMD (table 4); however, 

based on the supposition of required mitigation measures for the importation 

of FMD-susceptible products, the risk for these species to be exposed to and, 

thus, be affected by this action is low. Therefore, APHIS expects allowing 

the importation of fresh, maturated, and deboned beef from Northern 

Argentina will have no effect on threatened or endangered species or their 

critical habitat in the United States.

APHIS determined that the risk of FMD-infected beef entering the United 

States from Northern Argentina, and the potential to expose U.S. livestock to 

FMD, to be low (USDA–APHIS, 2014). Importations of beef from Northern 

Argentina are mitigated by requiring implementation of the measures 

outlined in 9 CFR § 94.11. Based upon the effectiveness of the mitigation 

measures included in 9 CFR § 94.11 and the risk assessment and the low 

likelihood that FMD would establish in U.S. livestock, allowing the 

importation of fresh, maturated, and deboned beef from Northern Argentina

is expected to have no effect on federally listed endangered species or 

designated critical habitat. 
23

Table 4. Endangered Species in the United States Susceptible to Foot-andMouth Disease.

Common Name Scientific Name Critical 

Habitat Listing Status

Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou No Endangered

Columbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

leuceurus No Endangered

Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium No Endangered

Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

sonoriensis No Endangered

Bighorn sheep Ovis Canadensis Yes Endangered

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana No Endangered

D. Potential Cumulative Impacts

The potential impacts from allowing the importation of fresh, maturated, and 

deboned beef from Northern Argentina in combination with similar actions

are referred to as cumulative impacts. These impacts are not expected to

pose any substantial risks based upon the findings of the risk assessment

(USDA–APHIS, 2014). It is difficult to precisely quantify the potential 

cumulative impacts that are dependent upon disease conditions in Northern 

Argentina, as well as compliance with importation conditions in the region

and other regulated countries. However, APHIS concludes that fresh, 

maturated, and deboned beef under consideration for importation is a low 

risk in view of the certification requirements and other conditions for 

importation that will be implemented, making introduction of the disease

extremely unlikely. In addition, the nature of disease mitigation is of 

principal concern for this issue, and the constraints provided by the 

anticipated mitigations are considered to provide adequate protection.
24

V. Listing of Agencies Consulted

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services

Policy and Program Development

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 149

Riverdale, MD 20737–1237

Regionalization Evaluation Services

National Import Export Services

Veterinary Services

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 38

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231

Regulatory Analysis and Development

Policy and Program Development

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 118

Riverdale, MD 20737
25

VI. References

APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

AVIS/OIE—See Advanced Veterinary Information System/ International

Office of Epizootics

Advanced Veterinary Information System/ International Office of Epizootics, 

2000. International Office of Epizootics: Animal Disease Cards. Foot and 

Mouth Disease (FMD). Office International des Epizooties: August 30, 

2000. [Online.] Available: http://www.aleffgroup.com/avisfmd/cards/A010-

fmd-00.HTM [2007, August 21].

AVMA—See American Veterinary Medical Association

American Veterinary Medical Association, 2007. Foot and Mouth Disease

Backgrounder. February 14, 2007. [Online.] Available:

http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/fmd_bgnd.pdf [2007, 

November 7].

Bachrach, H.L., Breese, S.S., Callis, J.J., Hess, W.R., and Patty, R.E.,

1975. Inactivation of foot-and-mouth disease virus by pH and temperature 

changes and by formaldehyde. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental 

Biology and Medicine, 95, 147-52.

CDA—See California Department of Agriculture

California Department of Agriculture, 1926. The epizootic of foot-andmouth disease in California. February 17, 1924 to June 10, 1926. Charles 

Keane, D.V.S. Special Publication No. 65, 110 pp. Sacramento, CA.

CIDRAP—See Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy

Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, 2007. University of 

Minnesota, Academic Health Center. Foot-and-mouth disease. [Online.] 

Available: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/biosecurity/agbiosec/anim-disease/foot-mouth.html [2007, Sept. 13].

Corn, J., and Fischer, J., 2001. What if FMD hits? Southeastern cooperative

wildlife disease study (SCWDS) Briefs, April 2001, 17.1 [Online.] 

Available: http://www.uga.edu/scwds/topic_index/2001/WhatifFMDHits.pdf

[2007, Nov. 7].
26

Cottral, G.E., 1969. Persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in animals, 

their products and the environment. Bull. Off. Int. Epizoot., 70(3):549–68.

Enserink, M., 2001. The English patient. ScienceNOW 2001 (426): 2. April 

26, 2001. [Online.] Available: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org [2007, 

Sept. 20].

FASS—See Federation of Animal Science Societies

Federation of Animal Science Societies, 2007. Foot and mouth disease 

vaccine developed by USDA, ARS Scientists. Article #1244, distributed 

May 31, 2007. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=205 [2007, Oct. 16].

Fields, B.N., Knipe, D.M., and Howley, P.M., 1996. Fundemental

Virology, 3rdEdition.

Haas, B., Kramer, M., 2000. Appendix 11: Possible introduction of FMDV 

with sheep intestines from FMD countries. FAO/AGA/The European 

Commission for the control of foot-and-mouth disease. [Online.] Available:

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/AGAH/EUFMD/reports/rg2000bv/app11.pdf

[2007, Nov. 6].

LDWF—See Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2007. Surveillance plan to 

help control wild hog population adopted. Released: 11/13/07. [Online.] 

Available: http://www.wlf.state.la.us/news [2007, Nov. 14].

Morgan, J.T., Fischer, J., Hostetler, M.E., 2003. If foot-and-mouth disease 

came to Florida: potential impact on white-tailed deer in Florida. University

of Florida, March 2003. [Online.] Available:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_UW183 [2004, Oct. 20].

Mouchantant, S., Haas, B., Lutz, W., Pohlmeyer, K., Frolich, K., 2005. 

Absence of antibodies to foot-and-mouth disease virus in free-ranging roe 

deer from selected areas of Germany (2001–2002). Wildlife Disease 

Association: Journal of Wildlife Diseases 41(3), July 2005, pp. 599–605.

Moutou, F., 2005. Foot and mouth disease in wildlife: risks and risk 

management proposals for Europe. FAO/EUFMD Reports, 2005 Session of 

the Research Group of the Standing Technical Committee of EUFMD 

(Greifswald, Insel-Riems, Germany: September 2005). [Online.] Available: 

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/commissions/docs/research_group/germany05

/REPORT-final.pdf
27

ODA—See Oregon Department of Agriculture

Oregon Department of Agriculture, 2007. Story of the week: feral swine 

action plan getting some attention in Oregon. August 8, 2007. [Online.] 

Available: http://oregon.gov/ODA/docs/pdf/news/070808pigs.pdf [2007, 

Nov. 14].

Pharo, H.J., 2002. Foot-and-mouth disease: An assessment of the risks 

facing New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 50(2), 46–55.

Pinto, A.A., 2004. Foot-and-mouth disease in tropical wildlife. Annals of 

the New York Academy of Sciences, 1026:65–72.

Rhyan, J., Shalev, M., Gidlewski, T., McCollum, M., Ward, G., Deng, M., 

McKenna, T., Salman, M., 2006. Susceptibility of North American wild 

ungulates to foot-and-mouth disease virus: initial findings. FAO/EUFMD

Reports, 2006 Session of the Research Group of the Standing Technical 

Committee of EUFMD (Pahphos, Cyprus: October 2006). [Online.] 

Available: 

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/commissions/docs/research_group/paphos/Ap

p23.pdf [2007, Oct. 17].

Schoenian, S., 2005. Mad cow and foot-and-mouth. University of Maryland, 

Maryland Cooperative Extension, Western Maryland Research and Education 

Center. Copyright 2000; last revised: 12/23/05. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.sheepandgoat.com/articles/bse_fmd.html [2007, Sept. 20].

Shimshony et al., 1986. Shimshony, A., Orgad, U., Baharav, D., Prudovsky, 

S., Yakobson, B., Bar Moshe, B., Dagan, D., 1986. Malignant foot-andmouth disease in mountain gazelles. Veterinary Record (1986) 119, 175–

176. [Online.] Available: http://www.israel-embassy.org.uk

Thomson, G.R., Vosloo, W., Bastos, A.D.S., 2003. Foot and mouth disease

in wildlife. Virus Research 91 (2003) 145–161. [Online.] Available: 

www.sciencedirect.com

USDA–APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service

USDA–ARS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2013. 

Guarding the country against foreign animal diseases. Agricultural Research, 

August 2013. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct13/animal1013.htm
28

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

2014. Risk analysis: foot-and-mouth disease risk from importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen), matured, deboned beef from Northern Argentina into the 

United States.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

2003. Importation of solid wood packing material. Final environmental 

impact statement—August 2003. Riverdale, MD.

USGS—See U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological

Survey

U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, National 

Wildlife Health Center, 2007a. Wildlife Health Bulletin #01–01 from Bob 

McLean, Director NWHC: foot and mouth disease in Europe- fact sheet. 

Last modified June 28, 2007. [Online.] Available:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, National 

Wildlife Health Center, 2007b. Foot and mouth disease. Last modified June

28, 2007. [Online.] Available: http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Office of

Communication, 2001. USGS issues wildlife health alert for foot-and- mouth 

disease. Released April 18, 2001. [Online.] Available:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=480

WDNR—See Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2003. Foot-and-mouth disease: 

issues for Wisconsin wildlife. Last modified: April 17, 2003. [Online.] 

Available: 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/whealth/issues/fmd.htm [2004, 

Sept. 15].

WIN—See Wildlife Information Network

Wildlife Information Network, 2001. Picornaviridae: Foot-and-mouth 

disease virus. [Online.] Available:

http://www.wildlifeinformation.org/Subdirectories_for_Search2/SampleSp 

ecies/picornaviridae/Picornaviridae_FMDVirus.htm