By Jack Woodall
Bird Flu Madness
We must step up to counter the misinformation that is destroying poultry markets.
|
|
Proper cooking makes poultry safe. The safety of handling it is something else entirely.
|
|
The world has gone mad about bird flu. In Brazil, first-half 2006 results for poultry exports, initially projected to rise between 5% and 10%, are instead down 11.5% in volume and nine percent in cash value compared with the same period in 2005 - and this before highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 has even reached the Americas. Part of this loss is due to trade barriers, but reports recognize that there is a large component of bird flu phobia; poultry sales are down all over the world, leading to much unemployment and economic hardship.
All this is totally unnecessary. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that H5N1-infected poultry, their eggs, and other products are perfectly safe to eat, provided they are cooked properly. Raw egg and uncooked foie gras are out, but for the gourmet, cooked foie gras has long been available. People who prefer their boiled egg with a runny yolk will have to make do with the 3-minute version, but this cannot seriously be considered a hardship, compared with unemployment in the egg trade.
In Great Britain, some eggs are now branded in invisible, heat-sensitive ink, so that when they are placed in boiling water the brand mark appears after 3 minutes for soft, longer for medium and still longer for hard boiled, according to customer preference. This measure could usefully be adopted in other countries, perhaps with the local equivalent of the word "safe" appearing after a safe temperature has been reached.
So shop-bought, cleaned fresh, frozen, or barbecued poultry is quite safe to eat if properly cooked. The safety of preparing the birds is another matter. The H5N1 virus is spread between birds, and to humans, by bird feces; therefore the feathers and intestines of infected birds are contaminated. This means that wet markets are highly contaminated, and that people who pluck and gut poultry are at risk. Commercial poultry processors clothe their workers in gowns, gloves, and masks, which serve to protect them from avian flu. Vendors of live and whole poultry should take the same precautions. The consumer should avoid wet markets and not prepare feathered poultry, whether alive or dead, in the home, without doing the same. Pouring boiling water over the bird before plucking helps to kill external virus, but hands must be protected by gloves or the ubiquitous plastic supermarket shopping bags while cleaning out the intestines, and carefully washed afterwards, to avoid hand-to-mouth transmission.
What about vaccinated poultry? Well, the poultry vaccine protects the fowl from illness but does not stop the H5N1 virus from multiplying in the bird and spreading. But again, proper cooking will ensure that vaccinated fowl are safe to eat.
The big question is: How to get these simple concepts across to the consumer? The public is traditionally wary of government pronouncements, even in democratic countries. Still less do they trust industry statements, deeming them obviously self-serving. It is said that the general public believes whatever it sees on TV, and whatever is repeated three times must also be true. So, in the face of repeated scare pronouncements on TV about bird flu, how do we get the true facts about the disease in poultry across to the general public, so that it will take appropriate precautions without ruining the poultry trade?
One answer could be for respected nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to produce educational campaigns, including programs and spots on TV. But NGOs need funds to operate, and in this case the money would likely come from government and the poultry industry, which could result in undermining the integrity of the effort. A more credible source of funds would be a philanthropic organization. Perhaps the Gates Foundation, with its focus on public health, could be persuaded to part with a few million dollars to promote sanity in a world that has lost its senses over bird flu. Other ideas? Write me.
Jack Woodall is director of the Nucleus for the Investigation of Emerging Infectious Diseases in the Institute of Medical Biochemistry at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Advertisement
Rate this article
Rating: 2.00/5 (3 votes )
Alarmist media by Jack Woodall
[Comment posted 2006-12-11 20:13:16]
Relevant comments on the problem of media hype about bird flu and other matters also appear at the end of my January 2006 column "Why Mosquitoes Trump Birds."
Mr by Herman Rutner
[Comment posted 2006-10-24 03:02:16]
I agree with the first three comments regarding the extreme risk of handling potentially contaminated birds by any food handler prior to ''safe" cooking. It just can't be done safely, period! Hence sick birds, regardless of the economic loss, should be incinerated at or near the site.
However, there may be an economic silver (not gold) lining in that eating properly cooked eggs from infected birds, presumably containing heat inactivated viral antigens, may serve as oral immunogens to vaccinate a large number of unvaccinated individuals in a pandemic situation, albeit as a last resort. I recall seeing similar applications or proposals regarding boiled eggs in oral vaccinations.
Of course, the CDC or other agencies would have the demonstrate and validate the safety and effectiveness of eating suitably cooked infected eggs. The British practice of marking egg shells with heat sensitive dyes appears ideally suited to ensure proper heat inactivation, done preferably at central facility rather than by the consumer.
Such egg preparations could be stored longterm as lyophilized powders that would allow further standardization of potencies.
HR
So market the properly-cooked infected birds by JL in Manila
[Comment posted 2006-10-12 03:22:53]
Mr. Woodall writes:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that H5N1-infected poultry, their eggs, and other products are perfectly safe to eat, provided they are cooked properly.'''
Here is a modest proposal to solve this problem:
The Departments of Agriculture and Health in affected countries should buy up the infected poultry, handle it properly as they (better than anyone else) know how to do, cook it properly -- and sell it in their cafeterias.
And donate it to school lunch programs and soup kitchens.
And ask poultry industry PR people to market it for sale to restaurants and food shops.
The industry folks need to put their mouths where their money is -- and eat the properly cooked infected poultry that is perfectly safe to eat.
Response to by K Mc Allis
[Comment posted 2006-10-11 22:13:43]
With the greatest of respect, I must point out that cooking is hardly an issue needing comment. Handling is the problem. After I've cooked this H5N1 infected bird I still have pathogens on my cutting board, knife, counter top, rubber gloves (which people in the 3rd world have never heard of) bar of soap that I picked up to wash my hands and all over the floor because I've never prepared a meal without dropping something. Then I put the contaminated packing material in the garbage and tie the top of the plastic bag real tight and a fly gets through the tiny hole thats in all plastic bags and then I've got viruses on everything that the fly lands on for some three days. To get the simple message across you might begin by explaining to me WHY I should accept this risk. Nothing wrong with beef, pork or fish in my mind.
Response to "Bird Flu Madness" by Sam Stebbins, MD, MPH
[Comment posted 2006-10-11 18:51:56]
Excellent article. One thing to consider however - although it is true that proper cooking will kill the virus, how do you expect the average consumer to react to the idea that improper cooking will lead to horrible death? This puts a lot of pressure on the cooker, and leads not surprisingly to the consideration of other alternatives.
|