News flash!! Not only do animals get some of the same infectious diseases as humans, but they also suffer from some of the same chronic diseases, such as cancer. So what do humans and animals share that could be linked to the emergence and re-emergence of such diseases? Hint: it's part of the One Health triad...the environment!
A recent Newsweek article looks at how anthropogenic (=derived from man) activities contribute to the development of cancer in wildlife species. Researchers are concerned that human activities are altering the environment and, in turn, affecting the health of those animals who depend on a specific ecoystem for their survival. The Tasmanian devil has received much of the attention as their populations have fallen victim to devil facial tumor disease (DFTD), a quickly metastasizing cancer that attacks the face and neck and has a mortality rate of 100%. DFTD can cause severe facial disfigurement of devils and is spread by direct contact, which is frequently aggressive as their name would imply. Currently, the disease affects 65% of the remaining population of devils. If you do the math, you quickly realize that the population is facing extinction.
Researchers are partially attributing the rise in DFTD to the loss of genetic diversity on their island habitat of Tasmania. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the "population bottleneck." Animal groups are most successful when there is a great deal of diversity in their genes - that way, if an infectious agent arises, it is unlikely to wipe out the entire population. In the case of the Tasmanian devils, it is possible that human pressures (development, habitat destruction) have led to a decline in the populations and, in turn, less genetic diversity with which to adapt to changing conditions or new pathogens (i.e., the virus responsible for DFTD). The genes of future populations will reflect the narrowed genetic possibility for thousands of years.
Not only can virally-induced cancers such as DFTD be exascerbated by human behavior, but also cancers related to pesticides such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and DDT. In one study reviewed in the Newsweek article, sea lions that died of genital carcinoma had an 85% higher concentration of toxic PCBs in their system than other sea lions. Beluga whales in Canada's St. Lawrence Estuary, lined with smoking stacks of aluminum smelters, are falling victim to cancer, especially of the gut. Marine mammals are especially at risk because of the dumping of toxins and pollutants into the waterways and oceans. Chemicals can accumulate and reach toxic levels. In the Canadian Estuary, the concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), produced by those smelters, was 200 times higher in blue mussels than in surrounding areas. PAHs are long-proven carcinogens in both humans and animals.
The glass half full is this: pollution-induced cancer can be markedly decreased if the contaminants are taken out of the environment. The time is now to make changes that positively affect the environment - your health, as well as that of the devils, is counting on it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/208917/page/1
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Need for One Health
The One Health Initiative is not a new concept, but it may be finally taking hold. It states that there should be an increased collaboration between human and animal health professionals for the betterment of all. So many of the recently emerging diseases have originated from animal reservoirs (i.e., SARS, West Nile virus, avian influenza). The latest example is swine flu. In case it hasn't registered on your radar, a pandemic of epic proportions may be imminent. A novel strain of the virus that is a combination of genetic material from pigs, birds, and humans has already claimed the lives of dozens of people in Mexico (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517820,00.html).
Experts have said that we are due for another flu pandemic. Historically, we can expect three per century. In the 20th century we experienced the Spanish Flu of 1918 that claimed approx. 50,000,000 lives worldwide, the Asian Flu of 1957 that claimed 1-2,000,000 lives worldwide, and the Hong Kong flu of 1968 that claimed 700,000 lives worldwide.
Flu viruses are always present in both animal and human populations. Those who are elderly, immunocompromised, or caretakers of children are encouraged to be vaccinated annually. Scientists do their best to predict what strain will be in circulation; vaccines are then produced and distributed that may be a combination of these "expected strains." What makes things problematic is when a new strain is formed. This can happen when animal and human viruses interact. Viruses then mutate, forming a strain that people are not vaccinated against. What is really concerning to experts and what has the potential to cause disease of pandemic proportions, is when virus strains of animals begin to infect humans. If humans only get the virus from animals, it can be relatively well controlled. However, if the virus gains the ability to be transmitted from person to person, we can expect exponentially more disease and mortality.
The swine flu that is in the headlines today has the ability to infect by human to human transmission.
There are confirmed cases of the swine flu in North America. Heavily populated metropolitan areas are the most at risk. The flu is spread by respiratory secretions, so basic hygiene principles will be mandatory. Simple preparedness and hygiene techniques can help keep you healthy during any infectious disease outbreak. Handwashing, stocking extra food and water (don't forget to include your pets), practicing good health habits (sleep, diet), and avoiding close contact with people who are sick (that goes both ways too-stay home from work or school if you are ill!!) can help you get through an outbreak in your area.
Outbreaks that we may face today or in the future are the perfect example of the need for One Health. Veterinarian-physician cooperation will be crucial to best respond to these types of issues.
For further information on the swine flu outbreak, visit http://www.pandemicflu.gov/. Stay healthy.
Experts have said that we are due for another flu pandemic. Historically, we can expect three per century. In the 20th century we experienced the Spanish Flu of 1918 that claimed approx. 50,000,000 lives worldwide, the Asian Flu of 1957 that claimed 1-2,000,000 lives worldwide, and the Hong Kong flu of 1968 that claimed 700,000 lives worldwide.
Flu viruses are always present in both animal and human populations. Those who are elderly, immunocompromised, or caretakers of children are encouraged to be vaccinated annually. Scientists do their best to predict what strain will be in circulation; vaccines are then produced and distributed that may be a combination of these "expected strains." What makes things problematic is when a new strain is formed. This can happen when animal and human viruses interact. Viruses then mutate, forming a strain that people are not vaccinated against. What is really concerning to experts and what has the potential to cause disease of pandemic proportions, is when virus strains of animals begin to infect humans. If humans only get the virus from animals, it can be relatively well controlled. However, if the virus gains the ability to be transmitted from person to person, we can expect exponentially more disease and mortality.
The swine flu that is in the headlines today has the ability to infect by human to human transmission.
There are confirmed cases of the swine flu in North America. Heavily populated metropolitan areas are the most at risk. The flu is spread by respiratory secretions, so basic hygiene principles will be mandatory. Simple preparedness and hygiene techniques can help keep you healthy during any infectious disease outbreak. Handwashing, stocking extra food and water (don't forget to include your pets), practicing good health habits (sleep, diet), and avoiding close contact with people who are sick (that goes both ways too-stay home from work or school if you are ill!!) can help you get through an outbreak in your area.
Outbreaks that we may face today or in the future are the perfect example of the need for One Health. Veterinarian-physician cooperation will be crucial to best respond to these types of issues.
For further information on the swine flu outbreak, visit http://www.pandemicflu.gov/. Stay healthy.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Organic Milk: Who Benefits?
The organic food market has exploded. What at first seemed to appeal to a niche market, now appears on grocery store shelves everywhere. Consumers now have the option to buy organically grown fruits and vegetables, meat, frozen entrees, grains, beauty products, and dairy. It is so exciting to see that Americans can impact the agricultural industry by simply buying more of the products they want. What perhaps drives the organic market is the desire to "get back to nature." Consumers want a product that has a minimal impact on the environment during its production and that nourishes their bodies without synthetic chemicals or additives. The ideology behind organic is truly admirable.
As a consumer advocate, however, I prefer that the whole truth be spoken about organic food, particularly animal products. It is important to recognize what exactly the label "Certified Organic" means when you're at the grocery store choosing between the gallon of milk for $2.50 vs. $6.00. Does organic mean that the animals are more humanely treated? Does organic mean more nutritious? Does organic mean safer? In a word, no.
In a survey study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 2008, retail milk samples from organic, conventional, and rbST-free (recombinant bovine somatotropin) milk were collected from 48 states. Researchers tested the milk for quality (bacterial and antibiotic counts), nutritional value (fat, protein), and hormones. Surprisingly, conventionally labeled milk had significantly less estradiol and progresterone than organic milk. With regards to insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), organic milk did have less than both conventional and rbST-free milk. Organic milk had a slightly higher protein content (about 0.1%) compared to the other milks. Finally, conventionally labeled milk had the lowest bacterial counts compared to the others (1).
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees the labeling of food products as organic with the National Organic Program. This program assures consumers that they are getting what they are paying for, similar to a nutrition or ingredient label. The USDA provides a list of allowable and prohibited substances (available online at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682&acct=nopgeninfo); but to put it simply, organic foods cannot contain ingredients which have been made using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, genetic engineering, growth hormones, irradiation, or antibiotics. I can agree that it is desirable to reduce or eliminate the use of these products in the food industry. However, I believe there is a time and a place for one--antibiotics.
Under the current standards, if an organically raised animal suffers from a bacterial infection, it cannot be treated with antibiotics. The usage of antibiotics would result in a permanent loss of organic status of the animal. Dairy cows frequently develop mastitis, a condition where their udders become inflamed due to bacteria entering their teat. Mastitis is undoubtedly a painful condition and results in reduced milk production and quality. Organic producers will commonly use alternative therapies such as vitamin supplements to treat mastitis, but currently there are no products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that can be used for treatment of mastitis on organic dairy farms (2). Thus, animals may be left untreated when a simple round of antimicrobials would treat their condition, effectively reducing their pain and suffering. So, with regard to animal handling and welfare, an organic label does not guarantee humane treatment. In my opinion, antibiotics should not be an all or nothing commodity in the agricultural industry.
As consumers, we are trying to do the right thing with regard to the health of ourselves and our planet when we buy organic. Choosing organic helps reduce the amount of pesticides in our soil and water. It promotes biodiversity by using strategies such as crop rotation to improve the fertility of the soil instead of synthetic fertilizers. It is not a perfect solution, but unless consumers know that it's not perfect, they won't know to continue demanding better. Continually seek improvement and we will find it. So as to what to do the next time you're faced with the question of organic vs. conventional milk, take the time to find out more about the source. Buy local as often as possible and talk to them. Find out how they deal with bacterial infections in their dairy cows. They want to hear from you. After all, they are in the business of providing to you...they want to know what you think is important.
As a consumer advocate, however, I prefer that the whole truth be spoken about organic food, particularly animal products. It is important to recognize what exactly the label "Certified Organic" means when you're at the grocery store choosing between the gallon of milk for $2.50 vs. $6.00. Does organic mean that the animals are more humanely treated? Does organic mean more nutritious? Does organic mean safer? In a word, no.
In a survey study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 2008, retail milk samples from organic, conventional, and rbST-free (recombinant bovine somatotropin) milk were collected from 48 states. Researchers tested the milk for quality (bacterial and antibiotic counts), nutritional value (fat, protein), and hormones. Surprisingly, conventionally labeled milk had significantly less estradiol and progresterone than organic milk. With regards to insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), organic milk did have less than both conventional and rbST-free milk. Organic milk had a slightly higher protein content (about 0.1%) compared to the other milks. Finally, conventionally labeled milk had the lowest bacterial counts compared to the others (1).
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees the labeling of food products as organic with the National Organic Program. This program assures consumers that they are getting what they are paying for, similar to a nutrition or ingredient label. The USDA provides a list of allowable and prohibited substances (available online at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682&acct=nopgeninfo); but to put it simply, organic foods cannot contain ingredients which have been made using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, genetic engineering, growth hormones, irradiation, or antibiotics. I can agree that it is desirable to reduce or eliminate the use of these products in the food industry. However, I believe there is a time and a place for one--antibiotics.
Under the current standards, if an organically raised animal suffers from a bacterial infection, it cannot be treated with antibiotics. The usage of antibiotics would result in a permanent loss of organic status of the animal. Dairy cows frequently develop mastitis, a condition where their udders become inflamed due to bacteria entering their teat. Mastitis is undoubtedly a painful condition and results in reduced milk production and quality. Organic producers will commonly use alternative therapies such as vitamin supplements to treat mastitis, but currently there are no products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that can be used for treatment of mastitis on organic dairy farms (2). Thus, animals may be left untreated when a simple round of antimicrobials would treat their condition, effectively reducing their pain and suffering. So, with regard to animal handling and welfare, an organic label does not guarantee humane treatment. In my opinion, antibiotics should not be an all or nothing commodity in the agricultural industry.
As consumers, we are trying to do the right thing with regard to the health of ourselves and our planet when we buy organic. Choosing organic helps reduce the amount of pesticides in our soil and water. It promotes biodiversity by using strategies such as crop rotation to improve the fertility of the soil instead of synthetic fertilizers. It is not a perfect solution, but unless consumers know that it's not perfect, they won't know to continue demanding better. Continually seek improvement and we will find it. So as to what to do the next time you're faced with the question of organic vs. conventional milk, take the time to find out more about the source. Buy local as often as possible and talk to them. Find out how they deal with bacterial infections in their dairy cows. They want to hear from you. After all, they are in the business of providing to you...they want to know what you think is important.
(1) Vicini, J., et al. "Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices." J Am Diet Assoc, 108(7), 1198-203; 2008.
(2) Ruegg, P.L. "Management of mastitis on organic & conventional dairy farms." J Anim Sci, 1910. doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1217; 2008.
Friday, March 13, 2009
What should come first: the chicken or the egg?
Numerous definitions have been used for the term “welfare,” but most simply, welfare is “a state of complete mental and physical health, where the animal is in harmony with its environment”(1). To assess welfare, experts have used health, production, physiological, and behavioral-type indicators.
One livestock management practice that appears to raise welfare concerns is the housing of laying hens in so-called “battery cages.” It is estimated that 98% of all layer flocks in the U.S. are housed indoors and in cages. Currently, the United Egg Producers (UEP) suggests 48 square inches per bird, while the European Union (EU) requires 75 square inches per bird. Supporters argue that modern cage systems decrease disease and cannibalism, they are better for the environment because they reduce dust and require less land area, and they allow consumers to enjoy lower prices. Furthermore, the Scientific Advisory Committee for the UEP states that caged systems provide cleaner eggs and also keep the eggs safe from bacterial contamination. Caged housing provides protection of the hens from environmental extremes and predators, as well as facilitates optimal daily care and inspection of the birds (2). According to standard welfare assessments, it would appear that producers have taken into consideration health and production indicators.
However, supporters of cage free egg production argue that hens should be able to lie down, stretch their wings, and turn around, examples of basic ethological indicators of welfare; current housing requirements do not allow for this behavior. Furthermore, the inability to adequately groom and demonstrate “natural” behaviors increases stress in the birds. Animals under stress have been shown to have compromised immune systems which lead to an increased susceptibility to disease.
Non-caged systems would undoubtedly increase costs for the final egg product, as housing and labor requirements would rise. In addition, space requirements would exponentially increase. Some experts estimate that to meet the current U.S. egg needs with cage free hens, an area the size of Kansas would be required. In my opinion, there is no "perfect solution." To meet the requirements of American egg consumption, it seems to be necessary to require some degree of "condensed housing." I think most everyone would agree that the current standards of 48 square inches per bird is far too little. In fact, the UEP agrees too! In a recent assessment of the industry, the UEP consensus states that each hen should have 67 to 86 inches per bird. However, change takes time--the industry is allowing a 5-year phase-in period (2).
Californians have recently spoken up on the issue as well, passing Proposition 2 which will require that egg-laying hens have enough room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their wings, and turn around freely. We as Americans have the ability to vote everyday with the loudest voice of all--our dollar. If we demand eggs that have been lain by hens that are able to turn around, the industry will undoubtedly respond by investing in new housing structures. Like all markets, agriculture resonds to consumer demand. Basically, don't go buying those $0.99 eggs if the thought of strictly confined hens makes you cringe.
(1) Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission. “Report on the welfare of layer hens.” 1996.
(2) United Egg Producers. “UEP Animal Husbandry Guidelines.” Available online at http://www.uepcertified.com/program/guidelines/categories/housing-space-feed-water; 2009.
One livestock management practice that appears to raise welfare concerns is the housing of laying hens in so-called “battery cages.” It is estimated that 98% of all layer flocks in the U.S. are housed indoors and in cages. Currently, the United Egg Producers (UEP) suggests 48 square inches per bird, while the European Union (EU) requires 75 square inches per bird. Supporters argue that modern cage systems decrease disease and cannibalism, they are better for the environment because they reduce dust and require less land area, and they allow consumers to enjoy lower prices. Furthermore, the Scientific Advisory Committee for the UEP states that caged systems provide cleaner eggs and also keep the eggs safe from bacterial contamination. Caged housing provides protection of the hens from environmental extremes and predators, as well as facilitates optimal daily care and inspection of the birds (2). According to standard welfare assessments, it would appear that producers have taken into consideration health and production indicators.
However, supporters of cage free egg production argue that hens should be able to lie down, stretch their wings, and turn around, examples of basic ethological indicators of welfare; current housing requirements do not allow for this behavior. Furthermore, the inability to adequately groom and demonstrate “natural” behaviors increases stress in the birds. Animals under stress have been shown to have compromised immune systems which lead to an increased susceptibility to disease.
Non-caged systems would undoubtedly increase costs for the final egg product, as housing and labor requirements would rise. In addition, space requirements would exponentially increase. Some experts estimate that to meet the current U.S. egg needs with cage free hens, an area the size of Kansas would be required. In my opinion, there is no "perfect solution." To meet the requirements of American egg consumption, it seems to be necessary to require some degree of "condensed housing." I think most everyone would agree that the current standards of 48 square inches per bird is far too little. In fact, the UEP agrees too! In a recent assessment of the industry, the UEP consensus states that each hen should have 67 to 86 inches per bird. However, change takes time--the industry is allowing a 5-year phase-in period (2).
Californians have recently spoken up on the issue as well, passing Proposition 2 which will require that egg-laying hens have enough room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their wings, and turn around freely. We as Americans have the ability to vote everyday with the loudest voice of all--our dollar. If we demand eggs that have been lain by hens that are able to turn around, the industry will undoubtedly respond by investing in new housing structures. Like all markets, agriculture resonds to consumer demand. Basically, don't go buying those $0.99 eggs if the thought of strictly confined hens makes you cringe.
(1) Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission. “Report on the welfare of layer hens.” 1996.
(2) United Egg Producers. “UEP Animal Husbandry Guidelines.” Available online at http://www.uepcertified.com/program/guidelines/categories/housing-space-feed-water; 2009.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Radicals on the left, radicals on the right
My first blog posting, how exciting! Here's how I see this going...as often as possible I'd like to keep my readers informed on my most recent experiences within the world of health and wellness. I am passionate about health, and I believe there are so many components to overall well-being. Through my blog, I'd like to explore these different components. I am fortunate to be exposed to new things everyday as I make my way through vet school. I have a unique perspective, having training in environmental health, veterinary medicine, and public health. I expect to discuss issues such as organic vs. conventional food, animal welfare and handling issues in life and at slaughter, complimentary and alternative medicine, antibiotics and hormone use in food products, and environmental sustainability. I realize it's a bit diverse, but that is my mission--dive into those areas where all aspects of health intersect to find out what contributes both to health and disease.
As with any issue, there are always people on opposite extremes. I expect the issues I raise to be no different. There are radicals to the left and radicals to the right--I drive in the middle of the road, listening and taking in the thought processes of both groups. Afterall, the solution is often somewhere right in the middle. I am open to hearing your thoughtful responses because we only grow in the face of adversity. Thanks for reading!
As with any issue, there are always people on opposite extremes. I expect the issues I raise to be no different. There are radicals to the left and radicals to the right--I drive in the middle of the road, listening and taking in the thought processes of both groups. Afterall, the solution is often somewhere right in the middle. I am open to hearing your thoughtful responses because we only grow in the face of adversity. Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)