Regarding the 2001 FMD outbreaks, which statement is best?

• A. The outbreak was quickly brought under control by test-and-slaughter
• B. The outbreak resulted in the killing of healthy animals on some uninfected farms for welfare reasons
• C. The outbreak was confined to the United Kingdom
• D. Both A and C are true

Answer: (B)

The situation tests how an FMD outbreak was managed in practice, not just the idea of testing and slaughtering infected animals. The best statement reflects that authorities carried out culling on healthy animals on some uninfected farms for welfare and precautionary reasons, aiming to prevent spread and to address welfare concerns from prolonged restrictions and anxiety on those premises. This shows that outbreak control can involve actions beyond removing only confirmed infections.

The other points aren’t as accurate: the outbreak was not rapidly contained by a simple test-and-slaughter approach, as large-scale culling beyond infected premises was needed and the timeline stretched over months. And the outbreak did not stay confined to the United Kingdom, as the situation prompted broader concern and responses beyond national borders.