The scientists, including the Brazilian professor who coined the term with colleagues around 15 years ago, argue that ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, are now increasingly common worldwide and linked to a decline in diet quality and a number of diseases, from obesity to cancer.

“It’s about the evidence we have today about … ultra-processed foods and human health,” Carlos Monteiro, professor at the University of Sao Paulo, said at an online briefing on Tuesday. “What we know right now justifies global public action.”

Processing and politics

UPFs are a class of food or drink made using processing techniques, additives and industrial ingredients, and mostly containing little whole foods. Examples include carbonated soft drinks or instant noodles.

While the term UPF has been used widely in recent years, some scientists, and the food industry, argue it is too simple, and the fight has become increasingly politicized.

The authors acknowledge criticisms in the Lancet series, saying more evidence is needed, particularly on why and how UPFs cause ill health, as well as on products with different nutritional values within the UPF class. But they say the signal is already strong enough for governments to take action.

In a systematic review of 104 long-term studies done for the series, 92 reported greater associated risks with one or more chronic diseases linked to UPF dietary patterns, and significant associations for 12 health conditions including Type 2 diabetes, obesity and depression.

Consumption rising

Most of these studies were only designed to show links, rather than direct causality, which the authors acknowledged. But they said the situation needed to be addressed while more data was gathered, not least because consumption of UPFs is rising worldwide as a share of the diet, to above 50 per cent in countries like the United States.

The three papers in the series, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, also outline ways to tackle the problem, such as adding UPFs into national policies on foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt. But they cautioned that the UPF industry is the biggest barrier to tackling the issue.

The International Food and Beverage Alliance, an organization representing major multinational food and beverage companies, said its members also wanted to improve global health outcomes through diet quality, and food companies should be part of policymaking.

“The policy and advocacy recommendations of this series go far beyond the available evidence,” said Secretary-General Rocco Renaldi, arguing there was a risk of reducing the availability of affordable, shelf-stable options globally.

— Reporting by Jennifer Rigby in London

The post Ultra-processed foods are danger to global public health, experts warn appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians have a positive view of the food system, up from 45 per cent in 2024 according to the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity’s annual public trust research report.

The report also showed that 45 per cent of Canadians feel the system is headed in the right direction, the highest level since a surge brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. It attributed this, in large part, to Canadians rallying around domestic goods in the face of trade tensions.

Scientists more trusted than farmers

While trust and transparency in stakeholders strengthened overall, scientists overtook farmers for the first time as the most trusted among all food system stakeholders with 44 per cent of people rating them as trustworthy. The report suggests this “highlights the growing importance of science and research in shaping public perceptions.”

Farmers remained a close second, at 42 per cent.

Results also demonstrated confidence in farmers as environmental stewards has bounced back slightly from 2024. Twenty-three per cent of respondents strongly agreed that farmers are good stewards versus 19 per cent last year.

The three least trusted stakeholders were AI tools, social media personalities and politicians, though AI tools such as ChatGPT were listed as one of the top five most used information sources Canadians use to make informed food choices, suggesting a “difference between credibility and exposure.”

Canadians’ trust in the country’s food inspection system reached a new high with 27 per cent strongly agreeing that they trust in the safety of Canadian food compared to 14 per cent in 2024.

Trade tensions shift trust

Geopolitical tensions appear to have also influenced Canadians’ impressions of food beyond their borders.

In 2023, 22 per cent of respondents trusted food imports from America more than other international exporters. Only 12 per cent said they trusted other sources more. In 2025 that number almost completely reversed, with 15 per cent trusting the U.S. and 23 per cent trusting other sources.

The report compares Canada’s ongoing trade tensions with the U.S. to 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic as both years saw the “food system thrust into the spotlight, both nationally and locally.”

“Positive impressions are rising, but they remain fragile,” the report said. “To sustain and strengthen this momentum, Canada’s food system will need more than temporary visibility.”

It also recognizes the 2025 results as a moment of optimism, one on which the country and the food sectors must capitalize.

“To hold onto this trust, the sector must turn temporary attention into lasting connection,” the report said. “Canadians respond to what feels close, human, and relevant. Trusted messengers such as farmers, scientists, and food experts need to stay visible, not only in moments of crisis or national pride but in the everyday stories that remind people why Canada’s food system matters.”

The post Trade tensions boosted confidence in Canadian food system, report shows appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“This package of regulatory changes is about building a regulatory environment that reflects and responds to the realities of today’s agriculture sector,” said federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald in a Wednesday press release.

The changes to the Health of Animals Regulations and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations fall into three categories: removing overly prescriptive requirements; increasing flexibility and speed; and levelling the playing field for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.

Industries of greatest impact are fruit and vegetable, and livestock — mainly poultry and veal.

For fruit and vegetable producers, the changes include:

• Fresh fruit and vegetables will no longer require prescriptive label.

• Produce intended for further processing, manufacturing, or preserving is exempt from mandatory grading requirements.

• Fresh fruits and vegetables grade standards will be managed by the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation to more effectively meet industry needs.

Changes for the poultry industry include:

• Reduction of traceability labelling requirements for hatching eggs and chicks to align with current industry practices.

• Required testing for Salmonella Enteritidis on hatching eggs imported from the United States to licensed Canadian hatcheries.

Changes to livestock regulation are:

• Increased efficiency and ease in updating animal import rules to align with international standards or new science.

• Updated import requirements for veal to give more flexibility.

The post CFIA says regulatory changes will cut agricultural red tape appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

All Safe Food for Canadians (SFC) licence holders who are slaughtering poultry are expected to implement the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program by Dec. 1, 2025. Currently, the scope of this program is limited to poultry carcasses.

WHY IT MATTERS: The CFIA’s new policy comes into force Dec. 1, 2025, for Canada’s poultry sector.

Live birds bring a load of pathogens in the intestine to the slaughter process. Every stage from the hanging of the carcass in live receiving to its entrance into the chiller has the potential to influence the microbial load on the final product.

Monitoring the microbial load at a defined point before carcasses are in their pre-chill mode allows for a more precise evaluation of contamination control measures applied during the dressing and evisceration stages.

Data generated through the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program is intended to drive science-based decisions within an operator’s food safety system to optimize interventions and enhance food safety. This information will empower license holders to verify the effectiveness of their control measures, validate the impact of process changes and optimize interventions, including microbial interventions, equipment sanitation protocols and adjustments to evisceration techniques. License holders will also be able to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the Preventive Control Plan requirements under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. When operators establish their internal performance baseline using pre-chill microbiological monitoring data, they will be able to allow businesses to track their own performance over time, identify shifts in process control and pursue improvement initiatives.

Pre-chill or early-stage microbiological monitoring can be integral components of comprehensive poultry safety management systems. Authorities like the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) incorporate requirements for microbiological monitoring at various stages, including consideration of pre-chill data, to verify process control in poultry slaughter establishments.

The CFIA developed the following microbiological sampling measures to help food businesses comply with section 47 and 89 (1)(c) of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. The implementation of the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program supports direct compliance with hazard identification and analysis, which requires operators to identify and analyze biological hazards such as indicator organisms that reflect potential fecal or environmental contamination, which can pose a risk to the contamination of food.

Operators are also required to follow hazard control measures to prevent, eliminate and reduce identified hazards to an acceptable level using control measures shown by evidence to be effective. The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program is a tool to generate such evidence for controls applied during evisceration and dressing.

The Preventative Control Plan must be written and include a description of identified biological hazards, the control measures used to address them and evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of those control measures. The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program results contribute directly to fulfilling this evidence.

The microbiological monitoring of poultry carcasses at pre-chill locations and comparison with post-chill locations will specifically help demonstrate that contamination is effectively minimized through evisceration and dressing process.

Operators can use sampling and testing procedures developed by provincial counterparts, industry associations, international partners or academic bodies if they can achieve the same outcome. The guidance must be tailored to a particular business, product or products and market requirements. The process must also meet foreign country requirements.

The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program should be integrated to the Preventative Control Plan supporting the Process Verification Monitoring Program for general E.coli- Biotype I for raw poultry as a complement, not a duplicate. The implementation of the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program should leverage the Process Verification Monitoring Program including processes such as random sampling principles, record-keeping systems or corrective action framework. This will ensure consistency and efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication.

There’s a distinction in the sampling point and primary focus; the Primary Verification Monitoring Program assesses the overall process outcome by testing carcasses after chilling, which shows the effects of slaughter, dressing and chilling interventions. In contrast, the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program provides specific verification data on the controls applied during evisceration and dressing by sampling before chilling. This paired sampling approach (pre-chill and post-chill) allows for a direct assessment of the microbial change occurring between these two important points.

Food businesses must comply with the law. They demonstrate compliance by ensuring commodities and processes they are responsible for demonstrate compliance. If a written Preventative Control Plan is required, the food business develops a Preventative Control Plan with supporting documents, monitors and maintains evidence of its implementation and verifies that all control measures are effective.

CFIA verifies the compliance of food businesses by inspection and sampling.

For producers who want to learn how to use the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program, they can learn more on the CFIA’s website.

The post CFIA raw poultry policy to tighten food safety appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture decision is a victory for meat companies and industry associations such as the National Chicken Council, which have advocated for faster processing line speeds.

However, it adds to health concerns about slaughterhouse workers, who often perform repetitive tasks with sharp knives and toil in extreme heat or cold.

USDA will start a process to make permanent higher speeds that it allows at some facilities under waivers, according to a statement. Chicken plants with waivers can process up to 175 birds per minute, compared to a previous limit of 140 birds.

The agency also will extend waivers, allowing facilities to “meet demand without excessive government interference,” the statement said.

USDA’s announcement cited a lack of direct links between processing speeds and workplace injuries, but research shows that meatpacking workers face a greater risk of serious harm.

Worker unions and other advocacy groups have long argued that greater speeds threaten food safety and pose a higher risk of stress injuries and accidents for workers. Immigrants and undocumented workers often fill meatpacking jobs.

“Increased line speeds will hurt workers – it’s not a maybe, it’s a definite,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which represents 15,000 poultry workers.

In his first term, President Donald Trump in 2019 issued a rule that allowed pork plants to run processing lines as quickly as they wanted. A federal judge blocked the rule in 2021 after a challenge from worker unions.

The Biden administration in 2023 allowed six pork plants to operate faster in a trial program for which USDA collected data on worker injuries.

Making the higher speeds permanent will increase stability for pork producers, the National Pork Producers Council industry group said.

USDA-funded data, released in January, found pork and chicken plant workers face higher risks than other manufacturing workers for musculoskeletal disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome.

Among six pork plants, higher line speeds were associated with greater risks for workers at one plant and lower risks at another, while line speeds did not make a statistically significant difference at four facilities, according to the data.

There was no association between greater speeds and higher risks for poultry workers, the data showed.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate occupational illness cases reported in the animal slaughtering and processing industry were six times higher than the average for all industries in 2022.

The post Trump administration aims to make faster meat processing permanent appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Among several other changes, a planned new package of federal regulatory amendments will put a gradual end to a “pause” imposed in August 2021 on such proposed MRL increases, which are overseen by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced the planned amendments Tuesday, in what are billed as Canada’s “next steps toward a sustainable approach to pesticides management, while giving farmers the tools they need to keep providing reliable access to safe and nutritious food.”

The term “MRL” refers to the highest legally allowed amount of pesticide residue that may remain on or in food when a pesticide is used according to label directions. Different MRLs are set for different combinations of chemicals and foods, depending on how a pesticide is applied for a given crop.

Ottawa’s 2021 pause had been imposed in response to public concerns specifically regarding a boost to MRLs for glyphosate herbicide, as was proposed in May that year for certain imported commodities.

That proposal, Bibeau said Wednesday in an interview, was meant to have brought Canada’s glyphosate MRLs in line with revisions laid out by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the body which oversees standards for foods traded internationally.

But for some, she said, the concept of MRLs is “really counter-intuitive, so it’s hard to explain to the public. When you say, ‘You know, we might be increasing that,’ the first reaction is that ‘Oh my God, we will increase pesticides on our cereal,’ which is not the case, which is not how it works, but intuitively, it was not well received.”

Bibeau said the government felt at the time that a pause, to better understand the existing process, was necessary, because PMRA was “functioning under a law that is quite old.”

Health Canada said Tuesday it’s “still reviewing the significant feedback from the public” in response to the proposed increase to MRLs for glyphosate, with the last comments received in April 2022.

Bibeau said the re-evaluation process for glyphosate MRLs won’t resume before 2024, while the pause on evaluations for other, “less complex” MRL proposals will be lifted more quickly.

For glyphosate, key studies on the matter are currently underway in the European Union and elsewhere, Bibeau said, and Canada wants to have access to that information before making its decision.

READ MORE: Canadian grain is safe: Chorney

Otherwise, Health Canada said Tuesday, “lifting the pause is important to allow people in Canada to maintain a reliable access to affordable and nutritious food, provide predictability for farmers to access the required tools to fight against new pests, and facilitate trade, which is central to support food security.”

Health Canada emphasized Tuesday that an MRL will only be increased if the department’s scientists determine it’s safe to do so.

Transparency

Ottawa’s proposed new regulatory amendments stem in part from consultations conducted last year during a “targeted review” of the federal Pest Control Products Act (PCPA).

Health Canada said Tuesday it found that “opening up the PCPA wasn’t necessary, as policy and regulatory initiatives are sufficient to achieve the goals” of the department’s agenda for the PMRA.

To that end, Health Canada on Tuesday filed a notice of intent for proposed amendments to the federal Pest Control Products Regulations, opening up a 60-day public comment period.

The amendments, as proposed, would aim to “increase transparency” for MRL applications for imported food products, and to “facilitate access” by the public to confidential test data (CTD) used in such decision-making, such as for research and re-analysis.

Up until the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Canada said, anyone wanting access to CTD would have to travel in person to Ottawa and apply for access to PMRA’s physical “reading room,” in which a person could review CTD under supervision and could only take notes, subject to PMRA also taking photocopies of those notes.

The government has to acknowledge that the public has an increased interest in these sorts of decisions, Bibeau said Wednesday, adding such methods of disclosure were “not really transparent.” Since the pandemic, access to inspect CTD has been granted remotely, using an encrypted USB key.

The amendments proposed Tuesday would further provide access to CTD “in a manner that would allow an individual to conduct their own data analysis” but while “maintaining the appropriate levels of protection against unfair commercial use of the data” as required by international treaties.

New regulations proposed in Health Canada’s notice of intent would also grant a federal health minister the “explicit authority to require submission of available information on cumulative environmental effects” of a pesticide, and require the minister to consider cumulative effects on the environment during risk assessments. They would also authorize the minister to require any available information on species-at-risk to be submitted during pesticide risk assessments.

Bibeau on Tuesday noted the federal government in 2021 put up $50 million for pest management research, both by PMRA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with support from Environment Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

That funding would go toward “independent” data-gathering on pesticide safety by PMRA, as well as research into alternative pest control products by AAFC, she said.

Cosmetic curb

The moves Ottawa announced Tuesday also stem in part from international commitments reached in Montreal last year during the Conference of Parties (COP15) on biological diversity, as per the participating countries’ adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Specifically, Bibeau said Wednesday, Target 7 of the GBF calls for reducing the overall risk from pesticides to biodiversity by at least half by 2030 — and by that, she emphasized, “I want to insist, the risk, not the use” of pesticides.

Target 7 calls for reducing risk by 50 per cent means such as “integrated pest management, based on science, taking into account food security and livelihoods.”

To that end, Ottawa on Tuesday also announced what Bibeau described as a more “concrete” federal move — namely, a new ban on “cosmetic” or otherwise nonessential use of pesticides on federal lands, such as national parks and around federal buildings, except where needed to protect lands against a harmful infestation.

All that said, Bibeau emphasized Wednesday, “there is absolutely no change” directly affecting pesticide use by farmers in any of the new regulatory proposals announced Tuesday.

“Pesticides are part of the toolbox agricultural producers use to protect their crops from pests and contribute to their productivity,” she said in the government’s release Tuesday. “The measures announced by our government today help to ensure responsible access, framed by reliable data, to these essential inputs, while protecting health and the environment.”

It’s given, she said Wednesday, that when it comes to pesticide use, farmers are trained professionals who are concerned for the environment, incorporate integrated pest management practices and limit their crop chem use to what’s agronomically necessary.

Canada, Bibeau said, has always advocated for trade rules based on science and will lead by example.

“If we are asking other countries, our trading partners, to do trade based on science, we will keep making decisions based on science, but we have to provide more transparency to the public, and cut the risk where it’s not essential, like for cosmetic use.”

‘Conflicting messages’

But the organization representing Canada’s crop protection companies says the government’s proposals miss the mark.

CropLife Canada, in a separate statement, hailed Bibeau’s “strong statements in support of the importance of pesticides in food production and the need for these important tools to help bolster food security in Canada and around the world.”

However, CropLife said, the government plans to “only slowly begin to increase MRLs again where required, despite acknowledging that MRLs do not pose a safety concern and that they are critical to international trade and food security.”

The government’s new plan to ban cosmetic use of pesticides on federal lands also “runs in direct contradiction to its own risk-based approach to pesticide regulation,” CropLife said, noting PMRA “thoroughly assesses all pesticides” for safety.

“For Health Canada to deem pesticides safe and then turn around and ban them for so-called cosmetic purposes on their own lands sends conflicting messages to Canadians.”

Canada Grains Council president Erin Gowriluk, in a separate release, also hailed Bibeau’s recognition of the importance of pesticides to food production and security and of “the connection between crop protection and environmental sustainability.”

However, she said, by persisting with the “pause” on certain MRL approvals, “there is an increasing risk of Canada’s trading partners perceiving it as an intrusion of ideology into policymaking, contradicting our message to other countries.”

That, combined with the ban on cosmetic pesticide use on federal lands, has “the potential to undermine the government’s explicit recognition that pesticide uses in Canada undergo rigorous testing and assessment to ensure they are safe and pose no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment,” the council said. –– Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds lift ‘pause’ on increases in crop chemical MRLs appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The Saskatchewan, Alberta and federal governments on Jan. 19 announced the start of a two-year pilot project within the limits of Lloydminster, a city of over 31,000 people straddling the two provinces’ shared border.

In Canada, commercial movement of food across a provincial border is normally allowed only when a business producing such food holds a valid federal licence. Each province has constitutional responsibilities for local commerce, and thus may have different inspection requirements for any food that’s produced for sale strictly within that province.

So until now, if a bakery somewhere in Saskatchewan was to supply products to be sold at a restaurant on the Alberta side of Lloydminster, it would first have to meet federal requirements under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and be licensed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

As of Jan. 19, under the pilot program to be administered by the Lloydminster Chamber of Commerce, participating provincially-licensed food businesses may trade into all of Lloydminster — including the part that’s not in their own province.

The pilot would not, however, allow those participating businesses to ship food anywhere else in the neighbouring province outside the Lloydminster city limits.

Put another way, a Saskatchewan government spokesperson said, the goal of the pilot “is for safe food to move into and within the city as if there was no provincial border.”

Businesses eligible to apply for the pilot and sell anywhere within Lloydminster would include:

• food facilities under Alberta jurisdiction permitted by Alberta Health Services;
• slaughter and/or processed meat facilities in Alberta that meet regulatory requirements for legal sale in Alberta;
• food facilities under Saskatchewan jurisdiction licensed by the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) or defined as a food facility in that province’s Food Safety Regulations;
• slaughter and/or processed meat facilities in Saskatchewan that meet regulatory requirements for legal sale in Saskatchewan; and
• certain food businesses in either Alberta or Saskatchewan that “conduct activities” on fresh fruits or vegetables — for example, minimal processing, grading, and packaging/labelling — even when a provincial licence or permit is not required.

Examples of businesses not eligible to take part in the pilot would include Alberta food businesses without a valid license; home-based food processors not subject to routine inspection; Saskatchewan businesses with probationary provincial licenses; on-farm slaughter operations in Alberta; and makers of “any meat product produced with no regulatory oversight.”

Any CFIA-inspected businesses holding valid federal Safe Food for Canadians licenses are “not impacted” by the pilot, the city said.

The outcome of the pilot is meant to inform a future package of amendments to the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations that would address Lloydminster’s “unique situation.”

(The only other Canadian city in such a situation is Flin Flon, which straddles the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border.)

CFIA on Jan. 16 posted a notice of intent to make such amendments at a later date. The Lloydminster pilot is to operate until Jan. 19, 2025 or until the CFIA’s proposed amendments take effect, whichever comes first.

The SHA already provides food inspection oversight within all of Lloydminster, including the Alberta side of the city, and “will continue to carry out its responsibility” for that work during the pilot period, a provincial spokesperson said via email.

Also, CFIA “will continue to work with the SHA on food complaints and food safety investigations,” the spokesperson said.

“Lloydminster food businesses have been asking for a solution for their unique issues for years, and this pilot project is an exciting step toward a solution,” Alberta’s Agriculture Minister Nate Horner said Jan. 19 in a release.

“I look forward to seeing how our efforts to reduce red tape on food trade will make life better in Lloydminster and inspire further reductions to interprovincial trade barriers.”

Edmonton MP and federal Tourism Minister Randy Boissonnault in the same release described the cross-border pilot as “another example of how the federal government along with provincial-territorial partners are taking action to improve domestic trade and support economic growth for everyone.”

“Current interprovincial trade restrictions are barriers for many farmers and ranchers who are interested in direct marketing beef across provincial jurisdictions,” Brodie Haugan, a cattle producer at Orion, Alta. and finance chair with Alberta Beef Producers, said in a separate release.

Haugan described the pilot as “an encouraging step in the need to explore solutions to this ongoing challenge.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Borderline city hosts interprovincial food trade pilot appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

After weighing the evidence on the compound’s safety, the FDA will decide within months how to regulate legal cannabis and whether that will require new agency rules or new legislation from Congress, according to the report.

Shares of U.S.-listed cannabis companies were down between five and nine per cent in afternoon trade, following the report.

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is a non-psychoactive compound derived from cannabis.

Cannabis products, excluding Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ Epidiolex, are illegal at the federal level in the United States, although some states allow their use.

The agency wants to know if CBD can be safely eaten every day for a long period or during pregnancy amid concerns about future fertility, Patrick Cournoyer, who heads the FDA office developing the agency’s cannabis strategy, told the WSJ.

When asked for comment, the FDA referred Reuters to a statement from last year that said the agency was taking steps to improve regulatory pathways for the lawful marketing of appropriate cannabis and cannabis-derived products.

— Reporting for Reuters by Raghav Mahobe in Bangalore.

The post U.S. FDA reported weighing CBD regulation in food, supplements appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Fifteen illnesses were reported in California, and one each in Minnesota and North Dakota, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said. Twelve of the sick people were hospitalized, the FDA said without elaborating.

The produce, which was distributed nationwide, was sold under the brand name FreshKampo or HEB between March 5 and April 25, the FDA said in a statement late Saturday.

“People who purchased the fresh strawberries and then froze those strawberries for later consumption should not eat them. They should be thrown away,” it said.

The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, meanwhile, said they were investigating six cases in Saskatchewan and four in Alberta.

The imported organic strawberries linked to those cases were bought between March 5 and 9 at Co-op stores in the two provinces and are no longer available for purchase in Canada, they said.

“Based on investigation findings to date, consumption of imported fresh organic strawberries is the likely source of the outbreak,” the agencies said in a statement Friday.

The people affected in the Canadian cases were sickened between early and mid-April and were between 10 and 75 years of age. Of the 10 reported cases, four were hospitalized.

People who have eaten the organic strawberries, purchased fresh and later frozen, and/or have symptoms consistent with hepatitis A, should contact a health care provider, the agencies said, noting vaccination can prevent a hepatitis A infection if given within 14 days of exposure.

— Reporting for Reuters by Doina Chiacu. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post Hepatitis A outbreak linked to organic strawberries appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Incorporating disease control and mitigation principles carried biosecurity planning beyond the status of simple prevention strategies to full-on disease control and elimination, which includes socio-economic factors, animal welfare considerations and recovery options.

The definition of biosecurity shifted again with the inclusion of zoonotic disease and food safety. As it stands now, biosecurity includes the prevention of disease-causing agents entering or leaving any place where they can pose a risk to farm animals, other animals, humans, or the safety and quality of food products.

Wrinkles in the biosecurity blanket changed again when COVID-19 became a worldwide pandemic. Suddenly, those involved in production agriculture — such as veterinarians — were summoned to coach clients through steps to keep people safe from COVID-19 within the tightly controlled environments of sophisticated livestock operations.

Core biosecurity principles and accompanying practices linked to livestock production now enveloped all aspects of food production, preparation, manufacturing and human health. Through the COVID-19 pandemic, humans had to reconnect with the basic principles of biosecurity that marshalled our species through cataclysmic events such as plague (Black Death), cholera, small pox, polio and influenza. Recovery in earlier times seemed by accident when science straddled the unknown. Then recovery happened by design when the marvels of vaccines and knowledge of viruses emerged. The concept of One Health enlightened us even further while we attempted to muster pools of expertise in human medicine, veterinary medicine, public health and associated disciplines in animal and social sciences.

Dr. Deborah Birx, former U.S. coronavirus response co-ordinator, stated at the March 31, 2020 White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing that there are “no magic bullets, no magic vaccine or therapy. It’s just behaviours.”

Birx’s assessment about fighting COVID-19, in the absence of effective vaccines at the time, simplified important biosecurity practices that would substantially reduce the risk of introducing and transmitting COVID-19, the most devastating infectious disease in a century. But continued travel of asymptomatic carriers fueled the rapid transmission of the virus across North America. Community spread through large gatherings, introductions into high-risk workplaces and densely populated areas and limited diagnostic testing hindered containment. Despite attempts to implement mitigation policy, spread accelerated during March 2020, highlighting deficiencies and limitations of North American public health infrastructure and preparedness. It became clear that the best way to prevent this potential tsunami of chronic complications and the associated increased health care costs was by halting COVID-19 transmission.

A U.K. paper, “Missed Opportunities? COVID-19, Biosecurity and One Health in the United Kingdom,” appeared in Frontiers in Veterinary Science. The paper questioned why science overlooked what we have learned controlling animal disease. The paper’s authors: Gareth Enticott, a senior faculty member in human geography, Cardiff University, and Damian Maye, with the Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire.

Enticott and Maye’s view reflects one I have often questioned. Their abstract begs the question: Why do we not apply what has been learned in animal epidemics in cases of serious disease outbreaks in humans?

“Whatever we read about COVID-19, the word unprecedented is not far away: whether in describing policy choices, the daily death tolls, the scale of upheaval, or the challenges that await a readjusting world.”

Unprecedented did not describe the crisis unfolding in the U.K. Rather, events were foretold in accounts of successive animal health crises. Social studies of biosecurity and animal disease management are a mirror to the unfolding human catastrophe of COVID-19, furnishing few surprises. And yet, these accounts appear to be routinely ignored in the COVID-19 narrative.

In bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), for reasons not yet understood, the normal prion protein changes into a pathogenic (harmful) form that then damages the central nervous system of cattle. Research indicates that the first probable infections of BSE in cattle occurred during the 1970s with two cases of BSE being identified in 1986. Twenty years later, scientists definitively associated BSE with human disease and the panic started. COVID-19, the third coronavirus causing respiratory disease in humans, transmitted through animals, emerged as highly transmissible and caught the world flatfooted — public health systems unprepared for another pandemic, no vaccine and leadership in disorder. Bovine TB in the U.K. should clearly remind the scientific community that we should never disregard the importance of animal reservoirs in dealing with zoonotic disease. The tragedy of FMD in the U.K. points to what needs to be done in controlling highly infectious diseases in a modern world. All these stories that could have guided the world’s response to COVID-19 were left untold. Failure to learn signals a failure of the One Health agenda.

In Enticott’s view, evasion was based on the government’s understanding of individual rather than collective behaviour during emergencies. Behavioural fatigue caused the public to reject widescale lockdown. The government’s chief scientist’s suggestion that herd immunity would broaden and flatten the epidemic peak should have been flagged as unacceptable, especially when paired with the belief that some people would have to take coronavirus on the chin. Rather than government-imposed containment measures, such as banning mass gatherings and closing schools, government assumed the public would do the right thing. It turned out to be too little, too late, too flawed.

The post Planes of biosecurity appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.