Comparing the FMD outbreaks in the U.K. (2001) and Uruguay (2001), which one statement is true?

• A. Sheep were a major source of infection for cattle in both countries.
• B. The FMD outbreak in the U.K. lasted much longer than the outbreak in Uruguay.
• C. The cost of the FMD outbreak in Uruguay far exceeded the cost in the U.K.
• D. Both countries were free of FMD before the outbreak.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is understanding disease-free status before an outbreak. Both countries were considered free of Foot-and-Mouth Disease before their 2001 events, according to international surveillance standards. In the United Kingdom, FMD had not been present in livestock for many years prior to the 2001 outbreak, which began with an index case and then spread despite that prior freedom. In Uruguay, the 2001 outbreak occurred despite a long period without active FMD seen in the country, which had maintained FMD-free status through surveillance and control measures.

Why the other statements don’t fit as well: sheep were not the main source driving the UK outbreak—cattle herds were primarily affected—and the initial spread was not caused by sheep acting as a major reservoir. Regarding duration, the UK outbreak was particularly prolonged and costly, while Uruguay’s outbreak did not outlast the UK's in the same way. Finally, the cost in the UK was far higher than in Uruguay, not the other way around.

So, the true statement is that both countries were free of FMD before their 2001 outbreaks.