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

The statement that both countries were free of FMD before the outbreak is correct. This situation is critical in understanding the dynamics of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks within different regions. In both the U.K. and Uruguay, prior to the onset of their respective outbreaks, there was an absence of reported FMD cases, highlighting the vulnerability of livestock populations to sudden outbreaks when the disease is introduced.

Establishing FMD-free statuses is essential for countries that engage in international trade of livestock and related products, as it assures trading partners of the safety of their goods. When an outbreak occurs, it poses significant economic and health risks, leading to stringent control measures such as culling of affected herds, quarantines, and trade restrictions.

In the context of the other statements, they do not accurately reflect the scenarios experienced in the U.K. and Uruguay. For instance, while sheep can play a role in the epidemiology of FMD, cattle are generally the primary host and source of infection during outbreaks, making the assertion about sheep being a major source misleading. Additionally, while there were significant economic impacts in both cases, the duration and costs of outbreaks can vary, thus complicating direct comparisons of economic impact.