Silver “solutions” against FMD: What we know, what we don’t know, and where money is best spent

NAU Newsletter | 30 January 2026

Dr Theuns Laubscher  |  [email protected] 

Amid the growing fear currently brewing in South Africa around the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) situation – with that threat uncomfortably close to our borders – I recently received a question about a “nano-silver” product that people are reaching for as a last hope, because everything else seems to fail.

This is an understandable question. But it is precisely in moments like these that marketing claims must be separated from biological facts.

Viruses are not “killed” like bacteria

Foot-and-Mouth Disease is caused by a virus – a tiny piece of genetic material wrapped in a protein coat. Viruses do not “die” like bacteria; they are rendered inactive or prevented from attaching to cells and replicating. It is important to understand this, because it determines what a product can realistically claim to do, and when scientifically unsupported claims are made, it causes unnecessary concern.

By understanding the underlying scientific concepts, we give farmers the power to make informed decisions and to distinguish facts from misconceptions.

With awareness of the scientific facts, we can more easily assess whether what a product claims to do is actually possible.

Silver: Strong on surfaces, but internal use is a different matter

Silver compounds and silver-containing wound dressings have an established role in external wound management and surface antimicrobial control. In wounds, the target is direct, and it alters the local conditions, making it impossible for bacteria to survive and multiply on a wound surface. Silver can break down biofilm and reduce the risk of infection – thereby helping to lower microbial load.

But that external success does not automatically mean it will also improve internal disease control.

It is no better than swallowing a mouthful of “Deep Heat” for muscle pain instead of applying it externally to the sore muscle.

When a product claims that nano-silver can “kill” or control a virus inside an animal, the burden of proof must be high.

Internally, the situation becomes complex:

The virus interacts with cells and tissues;

The dose of silver administered is critical – distribution of the product, its carriers, and safety are major concerns;

And mechanisms that sound promising in theory rarely translate to clinical results in real animals under field conditions.

So why are there not already FMD-affected farms celebrating remarkable differences with figures and evidence showing how FMD was stopped in its tracks?

A more honest perspective is simple: we cannot assume that because silver works on a wound surface, it will therefore work internally against a viral disease. Without strong, species-specific evidence of both efficacy and safety, such claims remain just that – claims.

And the crux of the matter is that manufacturers or distributors rarely provide evidence when approached and when their pamphlet claims are examined. Again, this raises serious concern.

The oxidative stress story: even “possible mechanisms” come at a cost

Some nano-silver products are described as working via oxidative damage (Reactive Oxygen Species/ROS), which can disrupt microbes. Even if this mechanism shows potential in a laboratory, the risk in a living animal is that oxidative stress can also cause tissue damage, inflammation and slower recovery. The cost is therefore not only financial, like throwing money away – it can also be biological.

The better investment: immunity and recovery

When farmers in panic-driven states spend large sums, it is necessary to take a step back, gain perspective, and rather ask: “Where can I best spend this money to ensure my animals’ recovery and well-being?”

Is it not wiser to support the ability to respond and recover, rather than invest in something where the claims are full of holes and may even cause harm? Rather enhance recovery by:

• Ensuring adequate trace minerals (zinc, selenium, copper, manganese);

• Reducing oxidative stress through normal physiological pathways;

• Supporting epithelial repair (oral and foot tissues are central to FMD’s damaging effects);

• And improving general immune readiness.

In short, rather than paying a premium for a “silver bullet” with uncertain internal evidence, it is likely wiser to direct resources where we know they will help – nutrition, trace mineral status, immune function and tissue repair.

Conclusion

Be careful not to do something just for the sake of doing it. It may make you feel better because at least you are doing something, but even if there is no immediate harm, you are enriching someone who makes unsupported claims.

I want to reiterate: silver certainly has a valid place externally, particularly in wound management. But during this period of concern, we must be careful not to extend that proven application to internal “healing” claims without solid evidence.

When budgets are tight and anxiety is high, it is likely wiser to focus resources on approaches that provide proven support for the herd’s recovery and resilience – such as immune support and overall recovery capacity – rather than relying on promises that are not yet sufficiently verified.