This is Why We Didn’t Want NBAF in Mid-Missouri

The Brits have another confirmed foot-and-mouth outbreak:

Cattle at a farm in Surrey have been found to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease.

Some 60 animals on the farm near Guildford have tested positive for the disease which wreaked havoc in 2001.

A 3km protection zone has been put in place around the premises and a UK ban imposed on movement of all livestock.
[...]
In accordance with legislation, all cattle on the Surrey premises will be culled, said a government spokesman.
[...]
As well as the 3km protection zone, there is also a 10km surveillance zone where nearby animals are monitored.

The outbreak in 2001 led to between 6.5 million and 10 million animals being destroyed and cost as much as £8.5bn (about $17.4 billion). Many farms and other rural businesses were ruined.

One in 6 U.S. jobs are tied to agriculture. We are currently the only nation in the world that certifies its beef, pork, and lamb to be FMD-free, and for that reason we charge a premium on the world market.

Yes, NBAF would have brought a $500 million construction project and a couple hundred good biotech jobs to mid-Missouri. But it will only take one leak to make it a losing proposition forever.

There is a reason that the only U.S. lab that works with FMD is located offshore, away from livestock. Putting a new one in Missouri would have been reckless.

Manhattan, Kansas is one of the five remaining potential sites. Are there any cows or pigs in Kansas? Or deer?