When cows go to town: reducing the risk to livestock and people
-
Upload
livestocklivelihoodsandhealth -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
146 -
download
1
Transcript of When cows go to town: reducing the risk to livestock and people
Gerard PrinsenJackie Benschop, Nigel French
Reducing the risk to livestock and peopleWhen cows go to town
Source: http://speakupforthevoiceless.org/tag
- 2 - © [email protected]
In this presentation• Key concepts and facts on zoonoses• Researching zoonoses• Meat value chains• Effective and acceptable interventions
Source: Wilson, 2012
o more ‘exchange’ between wild and domesticated animals
o Intensifying, deregulating meat production & processing
o Accelerating mobility of meat (parts) and people, etc.- 3 - ©
• Animal diseases that are naturally transmitted to humans (viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites)
• Transmission can be airborne (e.g. influenza), via body fluids (e.g. Ebola), or foodborne (e.g. salmonella)
Key concepts and facts (1)
• More than 60% of human pathogens are zoonotic• About 75% of last decade’s new pathogens are
zoonotic• Globalisation increases zoonotic risks (“One
Health”):
What are zoonoses?
Global relevance of zoonoses
- 4 - © [email protected]
• Poor people with poor health conditions are most at risk
• Growing urban meat consumption represents major economic opportunity for traditional livestock producers (pastoralists)
Key concepts and facts (2)
Development relevance of zoonoses
Source: ILRI, 2014
Source: Prinsen, 2015
Supermarkets
Informal marketsTanzania meat import rose 166% between 2008-2012 (Wilson, 2012:7)Substandard and causes enormous
food safety hazards (UNIDO, 2012:iv)
- 5 - © [email protected]
• ZELS brings together 6 donor agencies: £ 20.5 million ($47m)
Researching zoonosesZoonoses attract many funders and reseachers
• Engaging 49 research institutes across globe…• collaborating in 10 countries in Africa and South Asia,• in 11 different research projects
• One project is HAZEL: investigating Hazards Associated with Zoonotic pathogens in Emerging Livestock meat pathways…
• with 5 Tanzanian institutes and 5 overseas institutes,• over Dec 2014 – Dec 2017 period
- 6 - © [email protected]
Understand how zoonotic enteric pathogens – Salmonella and Campylobacter – flow through the meat chain in North Tanzania:
Research objectivesHAZEL
Density of poor livestock keepers (<$1.25/day) o Describe meat value chain
(cattle, sheep, goats, poultry) from ‘beast to bowel’
o Establish where contamination most likely occurs or amplifies
o Determine where and how interventions would be most effective and acceptable
Specific objectives
- 7 - © [email protected]
Biomedical sciences & social sciences HAZEL’s research journey “acquaints a man with strange bedfellows”:
veterinarians, anthropologists, micro-biologists, ecologists, economists,
epidemiologists, a theoretical physicist…
And it works… wonderfully…
- 8 - © [email protected]
Meat value chains (1)
Findings after about one year…In its basic form a meat value chain looks like this:
In Northern Tanzania, some have described the meat chain as:
(SN
V, 2
012:
4)
- 9 - © [email protected]
Meat value chains (2)
In Southern Tanzania it was described like this.
o Livestock/meat moves through hands of many (3 to 10) agents
o Transactional relationships are opportunity/price driven; low trust
o While every transaction node carries risk of contamination; ‘bow tie points’ are not quite known
(Wilson, 2012: 12)
Some early findings re chain
http://livestocklivelihoodsandhealth.org/blog/tying/
- 10 - © [email protected]
Effective and acceptable interventions (1)
• Tanzania has heavy regulatory burden (7 Acts since 2003).“Multiple and often conflicting legal instruments under
jurisdiction of multiple ministries and other official bodies” (Wilson, 2012: viii)
• On other hand; regulations are “lightly implemented”.“Value chain participants are ignorant of the laws or choose to ignore them … authorities not in a position to enforce” (Wilson, 2012: viii)
• From development perspective, the chain “underperforms”.“The chain consistently loses value instead of adding it;
and it puts consumers to health risks” (SNV, 2012: 2)
Recommending additional food safety regulations would probably be very acceptable, but also ineffective.
- 11 - © [email protected]
Effective and acceptable interventions (2)
Next step for social science research is exploring two potential ‘bow tie points’: butchers and meat sellers.
• From who they buy and to who they sell
• Customer expectations and responses
• Views on meat and foodborne diseases
• Perception (indicators) of meat quality
• Relationship with officials
Source: Prinsen, 2015