David Bryne, PhD, was the first EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. He had his share of challenges in the position, including mad cow disease. He received the 2009 Medal of Excellence from Alltech, Inc., and had some interesting comments about food safety and sustainability. We carried Part 1 of Bryne’s acceptance speech last week. Here is Part 2, with his thoughts on consumer confidence and sustainability:
Consumer confidence
I mentioned to you that we had put through 71 targeted pieces of legislation. Of all of those, one that caught my attention most, and I think is still of considerable value, is the banning of antibiotics in animal feed as a growth promoter. I think that is most important piece of legislation from both an animal and human health point of view. So did any of these laws or measures have the desired effect? Well, we realized that gradually over a period of about two years consumer confidence had returned.
Throughout this, I learned a lesson. In the summer of 2000, after I had been on the job about 10 months, the scientist in my department carried out what we described as a geographical risk assessment, the purpose being to identify where within the member states of the European Union was there likely to be as yet unfound cases of BSE. They extended that assessment to countries in other parts of the world from which the European Union imported beef. Typically in these instances, the BSE had not been found, but the scientist was saying it is probably there. As you can imagine, this produced a huge, hostile political reaction in many parts. Germany was identified as being a Union member no reported BSE cases, but in which it was likely to be present. The German government minister responsible said, “No.” Within a matter of days of him saying, “No,” they found the first cases of BSE – a handful of cases of about 5 or 6. When the consumers of Germany put these facts together, they were absolutely shocked. The beef market collapsed in Germany.
I asked my staff to compare other parts of Europe and UK where the outbreak of BSE had occurred initially. In the UK there were hundreds of cases every week, but the number of cases was falling week by week. This was a lesson, or a message to the public, that there were effective measures in place and typically that was the feed ban, because the feed ban was in operation in the UK but not yet available throughout the European Union. The consumers in the UK were aware that the ban was taking place; there was a considerable positive reaction in the minds of consumers, which resulted in increased consumption of beef. The fact that there were large numbers of BSE cases in the UK, but consumption was rising offered an important lesson. In contrast, although there were only a very few cases in Germany, there was complete public fear in relation to beef consumption. Reflecting on this contrast, I came up with what I believe to be at the core of consumer confidence:
If you can establish that there is someone in charge who is responsible, and if you can establish the existence of a plan and show to the public that the plan is working, you can then increase consumer confidence.
Other health safety issues
So, using these lessons I reflected on how to handle some of the other health crises that I faced throughout my time as Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. In 2002, we had during a foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak, which in the United States is called hoof and mouth disease. In the spring of 2003, we had SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), and in 2004 we had H5N1 influenza (avian or bird flu). These last two are diseases that skip the species boundary; they are global diseases. What was shocking about these diseases, in particular SARS, was the speed of spread of disease throughout the world facilitated by global travel and trade. This potential for rapid spread caused enormous panic throughout Europe and other parts of the world. I remember discussions at the Council of Health in Brussels that were centered around whether there was a need to close some of the airports of Europe, particularly those carrying passengers from Asia. That did not happen, but it gives you an idea of the extent of concern that was expressed by ministers of health at that time. Let me just say something briefly about these two diseases and compare them:
• SARS is a deadly disease. With this disease you have human-to-human transmission. It is spread by coughing, sneezing, and spittle. But one feature of SARS of value to us was that it was not infectious unless the host or carrier was symptomatic. So that is how they were able to put the temperature gauges in airports so that if you showed a fever you were moved to quarantine. As a consequence, this disease was readily communicable but transparency was necessary. You will remember this disease started in China and there was a slowness there to acknowledge what this disease was. When we had outbreaks in Canada and Toronto, the health community thought they were dealing with pneumonia and protected themselves accordingly. They did not realize they were dealing with SARS. They acquired the disease themselves and began to spread it in the community. It was not until it became clear what the disease was that there was a possibility to contain the spread. We, in Europe, were lucky as we received two days notice before we found the first outbreak of the disease. The health community knew what it was and therefore we were able to protect ourselves. Only two people in the EU died from SARS and they contracted the disease outside the EU. Consequently, the lesson to all of us is that transparency in relation to communicable diseases is of utmost importance.
• Bird flu is also a deadly disease. As far as we know there has been no human-to-human transmission yet. So to that extent, it is less dangerous. That might seem a strange thing to say, but because it is so deadly and it kills its host so quickly, the spread into the community does not have time to occur. The real fear among epidemiologists is that the H5N1 virus will mutate and become more dangerous. In 2004, Thailand failed to acknowledge the existence of bird flu within its boundaries and thus put people at risk. I have to say, in relation to both countries I have identified, China and Thailand learned hard lessons during those periods of SARS and bird flu and they have now put in place proper mechanisms of transparency that I believe are a move in the right direction. They are pursuing the highest standards with regard to food safety and health issues.
Emergence of swine flu (H1N1 virus)
We have all watched the evolution of H1N1, the so-called swine flu that is less deadly although some people did die. There is human-to-human transmission and more than SARS and the real issue here is like with any flu, a carrier is infectious before exhibiting the symptoms. This lack of warning creates an atmosphere of fear and the possibility of more spread and spread that is more rapid. Once again, the epidemiologists tell us that this strain has not been seen in pigs or humans before. But what is even of more concern is that in the examinations that have occurred, in relation to this strain of flu, they have found elements of bird flu. The concern of the experts is that this virus could be the beginning of a mutation of bird flu, which if it is the case, could certainly present the potential for a global epidemic.
Crisis stimulates reform
I mentioned at the beginning of my talk that crisis often stimulates reform and this was certainly the case with SARS and bird flu as they did produce change. In the EU we were able to establish the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, and Sweden established a similar centre, although much smaller, modeled closely after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention here in Atlanta in the United States. Work was undertaken on the development of the International Health Regulations, rules that were put in place to require member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) to cooperate with WHO even under circumstances where the WHO sought to verify unofficial reports of public health emergencies of international concern and to collaborate with the work of WHO. These regulations were implemented in the summer of 2005. I was asked to assist after my time as commissioner, which I did by working as a special envoy. With these regulations the WHO could bring greater coherence and greater transparency to the handling of global communicable diseases. These regulations have also helped considerably in dealing with the recent H1N1 outbreak.
Sustainability challenges
In my belief, there is the new question: How do we make our animals, crops and food safe and sustainable for generations to come? In seeking an answer to this question, I identify what I describe as the AAA threat: (1) antimicrobial resistance that can lead to the increased risk of MRSA; (2) animal diseases, if not properly looked after can lead to the spread of zoonoses; and (3) animal feed contaminants, in particularly aflatoxin. These in my view are the three threats or risks to animal and human health:
• Antimicrobial resistance. Let me just dwell on antimicrobial resistance for a minute. We know from our own experience that many diseases are becoming resistant to antibiotics. We have seen the spread of superbugs that have developed immunities to disease, pneumonia, meningitis, septicemia, which are the kinds of diseases that are in the pathogen family of Staphylococcus aureus, which leads to MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). This phenomenon of MRSA is in our hospitals. We know this because it is happening all over the world. Now we find MRSA in the community and we are beginning to find it in livestock. One cause of its spread is the routine non-medical application of antibiotics.
As I mentioned, we banned antibiotics as growth promoters in the European Union, partially in 1997 and fully in January of 2006. What was the outcome of that? We saw that resistance of some diseases fell sharply and critically we found also that this was without a price, without the price of any increase in cattle diseases. But still the phenomenon of MRSA remains a problem and is increasing.
Those of you who live here in the United States and in Kentucky are aware of a high profile case that occurred just last year in which, unfortunately, a 17-year-old young man died from a MRSA infection. We know from the advice that we are getting that MRSA has colonized livestock animals such that it can now spread to humans. A new measure is being taken in the United States by Congresswoman who introduced a new bill this year, “The Prevention of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.” When she introduced this bill, she said something that I think summarizes this issue related to antimicrobial resistance extremely well. She said, “My legislation will limit the use of antibiotics in our livestock to ensure that we are not inadvertently creating antibiotic resistant diseases that we can not fight with modern medicine.” She said this well and I believe she is on the right track as she is getting support in the Senate for her bill and I hope that she is successful.
• Animal diseases. With regard to animal diseases, those of you in the room know this probably better than I do who are working closely in this area that a healthy animal does not pass disease to humans in meat, milk or eggs. I mentioned a moment ago that the US Secretary of Agriculture has an ambition to establish a national animal identification scheme. Opponents to this scheme say it is going to be too expensive. My answer to that is we have done it in the EU and it has been expensive but, in my judgment, it is critically necessary to ensure there is a proper disease surveillance network system in place so that early detection of animal diseases can be followed by rapid response to stop the spread of pathogens.
• Animal feed contamination. Animal feed contamination is an issue I am sure people in this room know much more about than I do, but I want to go back to a legend that I heard about sometime ago relating to the ten plagues of Egypt. There is a belief now, or so-called theory, that aflatoxins killed many firstborn children of that time. The theory being the firstborn children were fed first, they were fed from the top of the pile of corn where the aflatoxin may have gathered. Now, regardless of the legend, it seems to me that the scientific fact is clear that no level of exposure to aflatoxin, for instance in milk, is safe. We know that there has been quite an amount of new scientific development in relation to this to reduce the risk and it is interesting that one of the previous recipients of the Medal for Excellence Award received that medal because of the work he had undertaken in relation to mycotoxin binders. Interesting developments have taken place only within the past few days whereby the EU has brought forward a new regulation signed by my successor, opening a new functional area for mycotoxin binders to allow the development of these new scientific discoveries to be recognized so they can have commercial benefits for industry and also protect animal and human health. This is a move, I believe, very much in the right direction.
Sustainability
I want to finish with a few words on the theme of this symposium. Sustainability means a lot of things to a lot of people and it is probably not very well defined or is defined in many different ways. The one definition that I have come across was coined by the UN Commission recently when they said, “The state of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” I think that summarizes it very well, and if you set that as the parameter and that as the definition and measure it against what we have seen in the financial services industry over the past 12 months then we see quite a different way of doing business. The mantra of the financial services (some remember the firms on Wall Street) of “greed is good.” In this way, the financial services industry has led to the new phase of toxic debt. We in the food industry do not want to move in that direction because moving in that direction may lead us to toxic death. Recently the author and entrepreneur, Paul Orkin summed up the past 12 months very well by identifying what is not sustainable development. He said, “We have an economy where we steal the future, sell it to the present, and call it gross domestic product.” Let us, in the food industry, not steal from our children and nor sicken them.
Editor’s Note: This commentary is sponsored by Alltech. Through 29 years of research-driven product development, Alltech has created a range of natural solutions for the feed and food industries. For more information, please visit the Web sites at www.alltech.com.
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.